Miranda Rights under fire

When it comes to the law, I’ve found that some of the most knowledgeable people are criminals. These are people who spend an inordinate amount of time looking for ways to commit crimes, and because of their contact with law enforcement, have a thorough knowledge of the criminal justice system. That’s why I find it laughable that some Supreme Court Justices find that those under arrest are frequently confused about their Miranda Rights.

Miranda rights are pretty simple: You don’t have to say anything, and you have the right to an attorney. It seems simple because it is simple, but some of our esteemed Justices feel that Miranda Rights are a bit difficult to understand. Here are Justice Stephen Breyer’s thoughts:

“Aren’t you supposed to tell this person, that unlike a grand jury, you have a right to have the lawyer with you during interrogation?” Breyer said. “I mean, it isn’t as if that was said in passing in Miranda. They wrote eight paragraphs about it. And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor had this to say:

“We’ve got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn’t that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can’t reasonably convey, if there’s this many courts holding that it doesn’t?”

Miranda Rights don’t seem ambiguous to me, and I find it hard to believe that many criminals do either. At some point, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were rewritten into a lengthy list of rights which would be unwieldy for police officers, and even more open to interpretation. For those who like setting criminals free due to technicalities, who could ask for more?