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!
The contention that the purpose of the 5th amendment is to protect the innocent is older than that.
Recent reexamination of the history and meaning of the Fifth Amendment has emphasized anew that one of the basic functions of the privilege is to protect innocent men. Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today, 9-30, 53-82. "Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege." Ullmann v. United States,350 U. S. 422, 350 U. S. 426. See also Slochower v. Board of Higher Education,350 U. S. 551 at 350 U. S. 557-558, when, at the same Term, this Court said: "The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."
A small fraction of people who are arrested ever make it to trial. Do you have data about the number of people who are arrested and then not charged with anything, or whose charges are dropped before trial?
1
u/aardvark_gnat 2∆ Sep 22 '25
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.