The right to remain silent might not be a right after all if the United States Supreme Court agrees with the Bush administration’s position. The administration is urging the court to reverse its landmark 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona in order to allow police to engage in coercive interrogation.
A 1997 case on appeal from the ninth Circuit Court of Appeal involves Oliverio Martinez, who was interrogated against his wishes while en route to a hospital after being shot five times by police.
During the interrogation, Martinez was never informed of his Miranda rights: the right to remain silent, the right to counsel and the right to know that his statements will be used against him in court.
Martinez filed suit against the state claiming that police coerced his confession while he was enduring physical pain.
The administration claims the Constitution does not explicitly state the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during questioning and it is therefore not necessary to inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment states that persons should be free from self-incrimination and that freedom exists only in a trial in which confessions are used, the administration argues.
Martinez never was charged with a crime and his confession was never used against him in court, which makes his coercive interrogation OK, Miranda opponents say.
If the Supreme Court agrees with the administration, the American public will face the harsh reality that it is not free from coercive questioning by police and does not have the right to remain silent.
Miranda warnings have become part of American culture. When Americans watch TV shows such as “Law & Order,” they see firsthand the reading of Miranda rights to suspects. The word “mirandize” can even be found in many dictionaries.
Though the administration deserves support from Americans in the fight against terrorism, it does not deserve the right to limit civil liberties many Americans have come to cherish.
The political fallout from a reversal of the Miranda decision could come to haunt the administration. Since 2001’s terrorist attacks, the American Civil Liberties Union has reported a vast increase in membership, mainly based on the fear of the erosion of civil liberties.
Moreover, with Republicans clinging to a slim majority in the U.S. Senate, the GOP cannot afford to write off its few liberal members. Liberal Republicans, such as Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffee, have threatened to bolt the GOP if it continues to ignore its moderate members.
The court should respect the Miranda decision and preserve the freedom from coercive questioning Americans have long cherished. The administration should back down from its opposition to Miranda and respect the opinions of moderates. However, I do not believe that suspected terrorists (non-U.S. citizens) have Fifth Amendment privileges.
Giving up civil liberties in order to preserve them is no victory in the fight against terror. Rather, it is a defeat of what is both the privilege and responsibility of the administration to defend those very freedoms.