Sample Debate Outline

Sample Debate Outline

Parenthetical references cite a works cited which is NOT provided here

Proposal: We propose a constitutional amendment overturning the Miranda
decision. Police are no longer required to read the Miranda warning, although
suspects retain the constitutional rights specified in the warning.

I. There is no constitutional basis for the Miranda warning.

a. There are many amendments involving the rights of criminal
suspects. These include:
1. The right against illegal searches and seizures
2. The right to remain silent
3. The right to life, liberty and property
4. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (7)
b. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the right to be informed of your
rights before you make a decision to confess. It is assumed that by
accepting the responsibility of being a citizen of the United States
that people will take it upon themselves to learn the rights and
freedoms granted to them.
c. The Miranda warning is similar to being told you have the right to
free speech every time that you open your mouth or set a pen to
paper.
d. The duty of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality
of laws and court decisions, not to make new codes of conduct
with no constitutional basis. The job of creating new legislation
lies in the hands of Congress. (Constitution, Article I)
1. In 1968, Congress passed the Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act, which attempted to overrule Miranda. It
established that for federal cases a suspect need not be
Mirandized before interrogation. This law was ruled
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but under what
basis? Nowhere is the “Miranda” right stated in the
Constitution. (6)
2. Even Justice William Rehnquist conceded in his majority
decision of Dickerson v. U.S. (2000) that “it is judicial
overreaching for this court to hold Section 3501
unconstitutional unless we hold that Miranda warnings are
required by the Constitution.” (4)

II. As many as 28,000 felons go free each year as a result of not being properly
“Mirandized.” These technical violations are making the United States a
more dangerous place to live. (5)

a. In 1997, police interrogated arson-murder suspect Patrice Seibert
who confessed to covering up the death of her son by starting a
fire. After this first confession, she was read her Miranda rights
and the police obtained a second confession. The Missouri
Supreme Court threw out the second confession because they felt it
was coerced, and Seibert’s murder conviction was overturned. A
woman who murdered her own child now walks the streets a free
woman due to a technical error made by the police. (4)
b. In 2001 in Colorado, police did not read a full Miranda warning to
Samuel Patane when he was arrested on the suspicion of violating
a restraining order. Patane confessed to having a gun in his house,
which the police found with the aid of his confession. The gun was
used as evidence to convict Patane of a firearms violation. The
conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals because the gun
was discovered due to a violation of Patane’s Miranda rights. (4)
c. The most famous post-Miranda ruling was the case of Dickerson v.
United States (2000). In 1997, a suspected bank robber, Charles
Dickerson, voluntarily confessed to driving the getaway car in
recent bank robberies. The confession was disallowed as evidence
because Dickerson had not been given the Miranda warning before
he confessed.
As a result of these three similar technicalities made by police, a
murderer, a man with illegal firearms, and a bank robber were allowed
to go free. Due to the Constitutional right against double jeopardy, these
people will not be charged again for these crimes.

III. Precedent established by post-Miranda cases has weakened the efficiency
and power of the Miranda warning.

a. In the case of Illinois v. Perkins (1990), undercover police informants
obtained incriminating evidence from Perkins. This information was used
at trial. Perkins was no read his Miranda rights before the statements were
obtained. The Supreme Court ruled that because the conversations were
not held in a “police-dominated atmosphere,” Miranda warnings were not
necessary. (3)
a. This ruling leaves a lot of gray area. What is considered a policedominated
environment? Does a plainclothes detective have to
read the warning to someone before questioning them?
b. The effect of this ruling is to leave the warning unclear. It is less
protective toward suspects and leaves police officers uncertain of
the rules.
b. Michigan v. Tucker (1974) established that the Miranda warning does not
need to be read in its entiretyl. In this case, the suspect was informed only
of his right against self-incrimination before giving his statement. This
statement gave the police a new potential witness. The suspect’s law
claimed the witness could not be used in court because the name was
found through a Miranda violation, but the court ruled that because the
suspect had been informed of his Fifth Amendment rights, his statements
could be used to gain information but could not be used in court. (3)
c. The biggest downfall in the Miranda warning was established by the
Miranda decision itself. If a person has not been arrested, the police can
use any answers obtained in questioning in court without first providing
the Miranda warning. The Miranda warning is only necessary if the person
being questioned has been arrested prior to the questioning. This gives the
police an obvious loophole.