The 1966 Miranda v. Arizona U.S. Supreme Court decision provided that, under the Fifth Amendment, a suspect in police custody must be told: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. If warnings are not properly provided, any statements made by the suspect and any evidence derived from those statements cannot subsequently be used in court. The warnings are highly controversial and the current Supreme Court appears to be inclined to relax the Miranda requirements. Michigan police informed a suspect, Van Thompkins, of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, including the right to remain silent. Thompkins said he understood, but he did not say he wanted the questioning to stop or that he wanted a lawyer. Rather, he sat through two hours and 45 minutes of questioning without speaking until an officer asked: “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins said, “Yes.” He did not speak further and he did not sign a confession. He was later convicted of murder, that verdict being based largely on his one-word reply. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, ruling that the use of the incriminating answer violated Thompkins’s Fifth Amendment rights, as defined and required by Miranda. 

Questions 

1. Do you think Thompkins’s response of “yes” to the police inquiry should have been admissible in court against him? Explain. 

2. In general, do you think the Miranda warnings offer too much protection for criminal suspects? Explain.