Miranda I think we should see other people.

What seems like ages ago I attended law school. While I was there I had the luck of having then Prof, now judge Paul Cassell as my criminal law instructor. I believe Judge Cassell to be the UofU school of law's best professor (not necessarily my favorite). He was the most academically versed and yet still approachable. To say the least I enjoyed his class even while squandering my time at the law school. Judge Cassell has held some very controversial views which those who don't read his arguments would say "this man is insane". However when you read his arguments you get this strange sense that that well he could be right. At the least you walk away thinking well he's wrong but he has a really good point. In fact one of my good friends, let's call him Beef Jerky, after reading Cassell's arguments for capital punishment almost changed sides (for a brief second).

One of Judge Cassell's stances that I use to completely disagree with was that regarding Miranda. In the Article "The Statute That Time Forgot: 18 U.S.C Section 3501 and the Overhauling of Miranda" some basic points were laid out for the legal reasoning behind opposing Miranda. Since this article was written pre SC Dickerson it doesn't mean a whole lot in the way of legal argument (as now the matter is settled). However at the end of the article the argument was made that Miranda as caused a good amount of social harm. I remember in another article written by Cassell (I forget which, and do not have the resources to look it up, or am to lazy; you decide) he mentioned the hindering effect Miranda had on police officers from getting confessions that would absolve other people under police suspicion. Another issue under examination was how much Miranda violations directly lead to false convictions. So this got me thinking, maybe Miranda isn't what it is cracked up to be. A lot of my reservation on the issue is due to the fact that the numbers are under heavy dispute and it seems no consensus is coming (once again lazy or lack of resources you decide).

I however do have a lot of reservations about even thinking about reviewing my Miranda stance. Some questions arise that weren't answered by either side. One of the most compelling was when suspects were properly Mirandized how many were false convicted? Also how many had civil rights abuse when Mirandized? In my magical world of futurama, every suspect has a lawyer right next to them during every aspect of the adverse process. Then again would that hinder investigations as well? I suppose a lot more work needs to be done on the impacts of Miranda before we can even talk about Miranda's social impact and what we are willing to pay to keep it or have it go. Then again there is probably a better scheme that nobody has bothered to come up with yet.