Miranda law needs examining
There are loopholes in the law that allow people to escape their charges and continue committing crimes. These loopholes must be eliminated so the law can function effectively.
For instance, the Miranda law has come into question as the Supreme Court has been asked to review the case of Samuel Patane, a Colorado man who cut off a detective who started reading him his rights, and then proceeded to voluntary lead the police to a gun in his bedroom. He has since been charged with the illegal possession of a gun, but his lawyer argues that because he wasn’t read his rights, evidence can’t be used against him.
If the evidence was found and the man had the opportunity to hear his rights, he deserves to be convicted of the crime. There isn’t much justice in the judicial system when evidence directly points at someone, yet technicalities allow the person to avoid being charged with a crime.
Patane had the chance to be read his rights, but he cut the officer off, telling the detective he was aware of his rights. Now he wants to act as if he didn’t know them. Anyone who’s ever seen a cop show or movie knows them.
Besides, if they began reading him his rights, they most likely got through the “You have the right to remain silent” part. In that case, he heard enough to know that he was under no obligation to say or show anything to the deputies.
People shouldn’t have the option of getting out of serving time because of a loophole. This issue also includes when suspects confess to a crime before they are read all of their Miranda Rights. When someone confesses to a crime, especially without being read their rights, it probably means there wasn’t any other reason for them to confess except that they did it.
Therefore, that person should be charged for the crime. Evidence should overrule legal technicalities, especially in cases such as Patane’s.