NCJ Number
84479
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 73 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1982) Pages: 797-810
Date Published
1982
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This article argues that justifiable overreaction by law enforcement officials to the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona has resulted in discouraging suspects from discussing their actions even under proper interrogation conditions.
Abstract
When John Hinckley was arrested for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in March 1981, the Miranda warnings were given to Hinckley on three separate occasions within a 2-hour period. The warnings were shortly repeated by the FBI agents prior to their interrogation. Law enforcement officers have overreacted to Miranda because they fear their conduct will be deemed inadequate by a judge or appellate court. As a result, suspects who might otherwise disclose valuable information are discouraged from doing so. A similar situation arose in the recent case of United States v. Alexander. Embellishments of the Miranda warnings and the ritualization of the written waiver, as exemplified in the Hinckley and Alexander cases, dissuade guilty suspects from submitting to police questioning. It is suggested that the Supreme Court either overrule Miranda or else uphold the validity of the test of confession admissibility enacted by Congress in 1968 as part of the Omnibus Crime Bill. The article provides 35 footnotes.