Document Type

Conference Proceeding

Publication Title

Texas Tech Law Review

Publication Date

Fall 2017



Page Number



Miranda v. Arizona, Fifth Amendment, criminal law


Criminal Law | Law


This affords the suspect safeguards to make an informed choice between speech and silence and prevents involuntary statements. Although Miranda warnings are seemingly standard, the Miranda decision did not come without criticism.' Now, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision, the topic still garners intense debate.' Even after all of these years, there are still critics who do not support Miranda warnings, and now they rely on long-term studies about the effectiveness of Miranda warnings to support their positions. Yet, even with these new studies, there still remains some ambiguity about the effectiveness of Miranda rights concerning whether they overprotect the Fifth Amendment and whether Miranda warnings have caused significant difficulties for arresting officers. This Article will discuss some of those issues.

Part I of this Article briefly explores the debate that surrounds prophylactic rules' legitimacy." The most infamous of prophylactic rules are the Miranda warnings. However, the prophylactic nature of these rules is not without criticism. In fact, scholars who support Miranda warnings believe they are not actually prophylactic rules, and argue that if Miranda rules are prophylactic, then most judicially crafted rules that aim to protect constitutional rights would be considered prophylactic.

Part II delves into the effect of Miranda warnings on police officers." Many of the major criticisms that arose immediately after the Miranda decision were that Miranda warnings would make it harder for police officers to question suspects and close cases. However, after fifty years, we now have data that helps explain the long-term effect of the Miranda decisions on police officers.

Lastly, Part III explores how the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is different from the Fifth Amendment right to counsel. This section also explores whether there should be a difference. Although the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment aim to protect different rights, both boil down to a right to counsel. It is in this difference that questions arise about when a suspect has a right to counsel.

Included in

Criminal Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.