• • Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark Supreme Court decision that required police officers to inform suspects of their 5th Amendment right not to answer questions and their 6th Amendment right to have an attorney present before any custodial questioning. This decision overturned Miranda’s conviction of kidnapping and rape, which was based mainly on being picked out of a line-up by the victim and his subsequent confession to police. Although the Miranda decision seems fairly straightforward, it has been the cause of much confusion and has resulted in hundreds of overturned convictions. For example, if a suspect doesn’t feel free to leave even though he or she hasn’t been officially arrested, is the Miranda warning required? Police officers agree that coercing a confession is unconstitutional and unethical, but they often feel that they are being put in the role of the suspect’s attorney by being required to advise them of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. 
  • On the one hand, Miranda has caused known murderers to be released, but on the other hand, even with the Miranda requirement, there are documented cases where persons have confessed to crimes they did not commit because coercion was used during interrogation. What do you think? Take a stand for or against Miranda and give 3 reasons for your viewpoint. As you comment on each other’s opinions, remember to be respectful of each other even as you express a contrary viewpoint.
  •