|
The case of Miranda v. Arizona was criticized by law enforcement officials, who felt that their hands were being tied. Some police officials believed that officers would no longer be able to conduct interrogations of suspects without lawyers being present and that suspects who understood that they had the right to remain silent would always invoke this right and refuse to talk to the police.
Constitutional guarantees for crime suspects are comparatively recent in this country. Most of these rights have been made explicit only in the last 40 years, so the justice system may be going through a period of adjustment. Moreover, law enforcement officials historically have blamed civil rights for their inability to affect crime rates. And as the Wickersham Commission found in 1931, use of the "third degree," incommunicado interrogation and illegally seized evidence, had no effect on crime rates.
A number of studies of Miranda have been conducted over the years. One such study was carried out by Richard Ayers in 1968, two years after the Miranda Decision. On the basis of extensive interviews of detectives, defense counsel, prosecutors, and suspects and observation of interrogations, Ayers concluded that Miranda had "virtually no effect on police investigation." Interestingly, Ayers found that true Miranda warnings were given to suspects in only about 20 percent of interrogations and that of these, many suspects chose not to exercise their rights to have an attorney present.
|