MAIN POST: Do the Miranda warnings help too many criminals go free? no. the miranda RIGHTS. protect our freedoms. without them we could end up a police state.In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is where the suspects freedom of movement is restrained although he is not under arrest. An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. However, police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without first reading suspects their Miranda warnings. The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspects Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination. Many criminals/suspects talk at the crime scene after the Miranda is read to them latter they claim it wasn't.
Do they increase the cost of keeping the public safe?Only if the police forget to say it.
Can you think of any better ways to balance public safety and individual rights? I think personally police officers can read the Miranda warning from cards to insure they are read properly and make sure they use them so it is word for word and so it can't come back on them. reference http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?