The Miranda warnings are implemented to protect the citizen's Fifth Amendment right against coerced self-incrimination. However, the ambiguous nature of the phrase "right to the presence of an attorney," coupled with the degree of interrogation, often overlooks a suspect's rights to the Fifth Amendment privilege (Bazelon, 2007). Thus, the language used must be clear to ensure that the suspects receive constitutional protection and that their rights are not abused when issuing a statement or confession. Changing the language structure in the Miranda warnings will also influence how the police, lawyers, and the suspects interact with each other during interrogations. The current Miranda warning is vague and may confuse the suspect hence leading them to self-incriminate as opposed to protecting themselves ( Cicchini, 2012) . Moreover, the warnings may be ineffective in instances whereby the suspect does not understand when they should tell the truth and not self-incriminate or leave out facts to avoid incriminating themselves. The proposed changes in the Miranda warnings should have clear procedural guidelines that protect the suspect and waiver the rights. Therefore, before interrogation, the suspect should be able to affirm that they understand the safeguards stipulated in the Miranda warnings to ensure that they do not give false information to protect themselves. The changes in the wording of the Miranda warnings will read as follows: "You have the right to remain silent, and anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult with an attorney; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning by the police, and you are not in any way coerced to give false information. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before the interview and can stop responding to the interrogation questions at any given time to request for a lawyer. Do you understand?" The wording in this Miranda warning provides the suspect with the opportunity to have an attorney present during the questioning to ensure that they feel secure during the interrogation process. Moreover, to prevent the suspect from providing false information to protect themselves, they are informed that they are in no way coerced to give incorrect information. The above wording makes it clear for the police, suspect, and lawyer what is permitted during interrogation and ensures that the Miranda warning performs its function of protecting the suspect from self-incriminating. From the above Miranda warning, the suspect's rights are stipulated, and both the lawyers and police are aware that the suspect should not in any way feel as though they are being coerced to provide information. Moreover, the changes accommodate the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights by ensuring that during the interrogation, their innocence is maintained until sufficient evidence is found to charge them. This is in contrast to the former Miranda warning, which may make a suspect unsure of what they are expected to do regarding their rights.
References
Bazelon, A. (2007). Adding (or Reaffirming) a Temporal Element to the Miranda Warning "You Have the Right to an Attorney," 90 Marq. L. Rev ., 1009. Retrieved from: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol90/iss4/6
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cicchini, M. (2012). The New Miranda Warning, 65 SMU L. Rev. 911. Retrieved from: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol65/iss4/12
