The Effects of Miranda v. Arizona
"Embedded" in Our National Culture
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11348952 |
|---|---|
| Authors | George C Thomas (corresponding author), Richard A Leo (0009-0008-1154-9011) |
| Year | 2002 |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 203-271 |
| Publication date | 2002-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Crime and Justice (BOOK_SERIES) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0192-3234 • E-ISSN: 2153-0416 |
| Publisher | University of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1086/652221 |
| OpenAlex | W3124737497 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
Miranda v. Arizona required that police inform suspects, prior to custodial interrogation, of their constitutional rights to silence and appointed counsel. It also required that suspects voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive these rights in order for any resulting confession to be admitted into evidence at trial. The rationale of Miranda as elaborated by the Supreme Court has evolved from encouraging suspects to resist police interrogation to informing suspects that they have a right to resist. Reflecting a fundamental tenet in American culture and law, Miranda today seeks to protect the "free choice" of a suspect to decide whether to answer police questions during interrogation. Two generations of empirical scholarship on Miranda suggest that the Miranda requirements have exerted a negligible effect on the ability of the police to elicit confessions and on the ability of prosecutors to win convictions. There is no good evidence that Miranda has substantially depressed confession rates or imposed significant costs on the American criminal justice system. The practical benefits of Miranda to custodial suspects may also be negligible. Police have developed multiple strategies to avoid, circumvent, nullify, or simply violate Miranda and its invocation rules
Confession (law · Criminal investigation · Criminal justice · Criminal procedure · Criminology · Interrogation · Law enforcement · Political science · Right to counsel · Scholarship · Self-incrimination · Supreme court · Suspect · Criminal Law and Evidence · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Law · Psychology · Torture, Ethics, and Law
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,25 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2023 (18) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |