Handcuffing the Cops Miranda’s Harmful Effects on Law.pdfVIP

Handcuffing the Cops: Miranda ’s Harmful Effects on Law Enforcement by Paul G. Cassell Professor of Law University of Utah College of Law NCPA Policy Report No. 218 August 1998 ISBN #1-56808-040-9 National Center for Policy Analysis 12655 N. Central Expwy., Suite 720 Dallas, Texas 75243 (972) 386-6272 Executive Summary The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona created a series of procedural requirements that law enforcement officials must follow before questioning suspects in custody. These rules specified that a suspect must be read the “Miranda warning,” now famous from police shows on television, and then must be asked whether he agrees to “waive” those rights. If the suspect declines, the police are required to stop all questioning. Even if the suspect waives his rights, at any time during an interrogation he can halt the process by retracting the waiver or asking for a lawyer. From that point on, the police are not allowed even to suggest that the suspect reconsider. These requirements have had a substantial detrimental impact on law enforcement and the police have found it more difficult to get a confession. After the Miranda decision: The fraction of suspects questioned who confessed dropped from 49 percent to 14 percent in New York. In Pittsburgh, the confession rate fell from 48 percent to 29 percent. An estimate from the best available studies is that, across the country, confession rates fell by about 16 percentage points. With fewer confessions, the police found it