Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Point/Counterpoint On The Miranda Decision: Should It Be Replaced Or Retained?, Paul Cassell, Amos N. Guiora
Point/Counterpoint On The Miranda Decision: Should It Be Replaced Or Retained?, Paul Cassell, Amos N. Guiora
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
In this point/counterpoint exchange, Professors Paul Cassell and Amos Guiora debate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Cassell challenges the decision, arguing that it has had harmful effects on American law enforcement efforts. Cassell cites evidence that the decision led to reduction in crime clearance rates and urges that the restrictions in the decision be replaced by a requirement that the police videotape interrogations. Cassell urges prosecutors to consider arguing that modern tools like videotaping creates a legal regime that allows the technical Miranda rules to be regarded as superseded relics of an outmoded and harmful prophylactic …
Still Handcuffing The Cops? A Review Of Fifty Years Of Empirical Evidence Of Miranda's Harmful Effects On Law Enforcement, Paul Cassell, Richard Fowles
Still Handcuffing The Cops? A Review Of Fifty Years Of Empirical Evidence Of Miranda's Harmful Effects On Law Enforcement, Paul Cassell, Richard Fowles
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
The fiftieth anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona offers a chance to assess how the decision has played out in the real world and, in particular, to determine whether it has harmed law enforcement. In this Article, we take advantage of the time since the Miranda decision—now a little more than fifty years—to see whether it has produced the predicted harmful consequences. In particular, we survey the available empirical evidence about Miranda’s effects on law enforcement. We collect confession rate data, both from the time of Miranda and since, to assess whether Miranda caused confession rates to fall. We also review …