Our
view
Miranda
warning threatened
“You have the right to remain silent . .
.” We all know the rest of this of this
popular speech from watching Cops, or any
law or police oriented television series.
In fact, the recitation of those words has
been a required action when arresting someone
since 1966. However, the reading of those
words, the Miranda warnings, is now up for
debate in the Supreme Court because of an
incident that happened five years ago.
In
1997 Oliverio Martinez was shot five times
by a police sergeant in Oxnard, Calif. After
being shot, as Martinez lay dying, the sergeant
questioned the man all the way to the hospital
and even in the sugary room. No Miranda
warning was ever recited.
Today
Martinez is blind in one eye and paralyzed
below the waist. His case is before the
Supreme Court, which will decide whether
the restraints on police interrogations
should be discarded.
To
get rid of the Miranda warning would be
a devastating decision. The Miranda warning
advises citizens that it is their right
to avoid making self-incriminating statements
and that they have the right to request
a lawyer. The Miranda warning insures against
the United States becoming a police state.
The
Miranda warning protects citizens’ rights,
that protection must remain in place. Of
course, a ruling that minimizes defendants’
rights would benefit law enforcement, and
probably make it easier to convict arrested
individuals, but that is simply not a good
enough reason to discard guaranteed rights.
We
hope that the Supreme Court feels the same
and decides to protect our “right to remain
silent.”
|
