4 ms·
I think they make sense, but they're definitely not explicitly or even implicitly granted in the U.S. constitution, and the various legal theories (e.g. substan
by wahern 6y ago
I think they make sense, but they're definitely not explicitly or even implicitly granted in the U.S. constitution, and the various legal theories (e.g. substantive due process) behind the court's power to recognize them are still vilified by conservative jurists and pundits.
Miranda Rights had historical precedence in England, but IIRC mostly after America forked.
The right to counsel mentioned in the U.S. Bill of Rights only meant you had a right to be represented by your own attorney, presuming you had the means, not that the state or court had to provide one.
- ghayes 6y agoMany Miranda rights are _expressly_ granted by the Constitution. For example, the right to remain silent is clearly delineated in the Fifth Amendment [0], without the need for substantive due process. To the point you mentioned, from the Sixth Amendement: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." You can argue over how that counsel should be appointed, but I would categorically disagree with the interpretation that it only refers to you hiring your own attorney. [0] "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
- mardifoufs 6y agoI think he meant to say that the constitution doesn't say anything about having a right to be notified about those rights when you are arrested. What could be understood to be "Miranda" rights have a very clear constitutional basis and were not established by the supreme Court, as you said... but I think the term refers more to the Miranda warning that the police has to give to suspects in custody.