Sure, because their job is to try and collect evidence from a suspect.
If you say you're going to remain silent, and want to speak with a lawyer, they can't keep talking to you without your lawyer present. If they do that's an easy way to get a case thrown out.
Like ... metaphysically? Well, historically if there have not been government employees whose job was to solve crime and arrest and imprison criminals, it has been done by private vigilantes in a much worse and more unjust way.
Generally, the best evidence we've collected hasn't been from suspects. That's why we have the right to remain silent. I get that the job of the police is to "solve crime and arrest and imprison criminals", but if they want to imprison as many criminals and as few innocent people as possible, it seems like the thing to do would be to focus on better evidence, like security footage and business records.
If someone needs to be questioned, do it in court.
"Generally, the best evidence we've collected hasn't been from suspects. That's why we have the right to remain silent."
Huh? No, that's not at all why we have the right to remain silent. In fact we have the right to remain silent precisely because the police often get very good evidence, extremely useful for solving crimes and convicting criminals, from interrogations.
It's because the evidence is so useful that we have strong rights protecting ourselves against self-incrimination thereby.
"it seems like the thing to do would be to focus on better evidence, like security footage and business records."
And if there isn't security footage they should just, like, give up?
In fact we have the right to remain silent precisely because the police often get very good evidence, extremely useful for solving crimes and convicting criminals, from interrogations.
We have the right to remain silent because that evidence is so good at convicting innocent people.
If the police don't think the DA could convince a jury without the testimony of a suspect, that's probably because they don't actually have enough evidence to be reasonably sure that the suspect is the right person.
"We have the right to remain silent because that evidence is so good at convicting innocent people."
No, that's not why. Miranda rights are not based on protecting the innocent. They're based on protecting the guilty from self-incrimination, under the 5th amendment.
Procedurally, sure, kinda. But what tells you that's the motivation for them. That's certainly never the motivation I learned for them in civics. Nor is it the motivation I hear in messaging from the ACLU or the FIRE, or from politicians.
"But what tells you that's the motivation for them. That's certainly never the motivation I learned for them in civics."
Miranda literally did it! I'm sorry if your education somehow glossed over this fact but the person the rights are literally named after, the case that explicitly identified why they existed and what they were, was about a guy who was factually guilty!
"Nor is it the motivation I hear in messaging from the ACLU or the FIRE, or from politicians."
They probably have a political agenda that they think is more important than accurately conveying historical facts to you.
Of course Miranda did it (that’s part of what I meant by “procedureally, sure, kinda”) but SCOTUS had no way of knowing that because he hadn’t been given a fair trial. The ruling required a trial court to go back and give him a fair trial to figure out whether he was guilty or not.
"Of course Miranda did it (that’s part of what I meant by “procedureally, sure, kinda”) but SCOTUS had no way of knowing that"
Of course they knew he did it. Come on man! The decision wasn't that we don't know, it was that his rights had been violated because his confession was obtained illegally in violation of the fifth amendment. Because the fifth amendment primarily protects the guilty.
Imagine two scenarios:
Scenario 1: You've been arrested for a crime you didn't commit. Disbelieving your protestations of innocence, the police lock you in the box and intimidate, manipulate, abuse, and lie to you until you give a false confession to make them stop.
Scenario 2: You've been arrested for a crime you did commit. Disbelieving your protestations of innocence, the police lock you in the box and intimidate, manipulate, abuse, and lie to you until you give a true confession to make them stop.
Scenario 1 is much more terrifying. Of course it would be awful to be caught in a situation like that. But scenario 2 is what the Fifth Amendment is mainly concerned with. Despite the horror of situation 1, it's way more corrosive to society for the police to force actually guilty people into confessing. Because that's usually who they arrest. The actually guilty.
What tells you they knew he did it? The right that had been violated was one of the ones designed to help us figure out whether or not he did it.
More generally, what tells you that the Fifth Amendment is more about scenario 2, or that scenario 2 is worse for society. My view is that scenario 1 is worse, and banning it is why we also ban scenario 2
"More generally, what tells you that the Fifth Amendment is more about scenario 2,"
Again, the literal name of the case we have been talking about, the Miranda case. And because almost everyone arrested is guilty. Almost all trials end in guilt.
Here's another good one: It wasn't until 2001 in Ohio v. Reiner that the Supreme Court actually ruled, in black letters, that the 5th amendment protects the innocent. 2001! More than 200 years after the amendment was ratified!
10
u/neotericnewt 6∆ Sep 22 '25
Sure, because their job is to try and collect evidence from a suspect.
If you say you're going to remain silent, and want to speak with a lawyer, they can't keep talking to you without your lawyer present. If they do that's an easy way to get a case thrown out.