Stinneford argues that Miranda did not create a prophylactic rule. If Miranda were a prophylactic rule, the Court would have (1) described what the regular rule is, and then (2) created an additional rule to provide prophylactic protection. But according to Stinneford`s reading, the Miranda court actually flirted with at least three different theories about what constituted inappropriate coercion, and its rule underpinned two of them. In other words, Miranda may not have been intended for prophylactic purposes at all. On the other hand, the Court`s lack of clarity may be strategic in nature. If the courts made it clear that the Constitution required X, but went beyond that to require Y, would their decisions have the same legitimacy? To what extent does the constitutional authority of the court derive from purporting to interpret the Constitution rather than to establish an explicitly distinct legal standard above constitutional importance? I`m sure many law professors have no problem with complex doctrines or prophylactic rules, but how would other political actors and ordinary citizens react if the court`s legislative role were revealed? Oxford Advanced Learner`s Dictionary Definition of the Prophylactic Adverb Angelina Jolie`s announcement on preventive surgery. The analysis also has broader implications for Supreme Court doctrine and prophylactic rules in general. Stinneford`s article generalizes the context of the Eighth Amendment. We could generalize further. Stinneford argues that the Court should first be clear about the scope of the fundamental requirement before establishing a rule of doctrine to protect the essential. Other scholars have suggested that, when relying on precedents, the Court should first determine what the Constitution actually requires, and then analyze whether precedents require otherwise.
In any event, the two-step process helps us understand what work the Court`s doctrine actually does, which also affects how we view future cases that limit or expand the doctrine. This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Find out how your comment data is handled. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia articles on standard prophylactic reports treat Miranda as a “prophylactic” decision. According to this view, the Constitution directly prohibits the use of forced confessions. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the direct prohibition was too narrow, either because it was too difficult to enforce or because the cost of error was asymmetric. The Court responded to the problem by deliberately creating a “prophylactic” rule that went beyond the constitution itself. This ensured that the underlying right was adequately protected. Find the answers online with Practical English Usage, your go-to guide to problems in English. It`s a rare achievement to write about a case in the constitutional canon and tell us something we didn`t know. This is the realization of John Stinneford`s recent article, The Illusory Eighth Amendment.
Despite its title, the most interesting part of Stinneford`s article is actually an analysis and critique of the famous Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Save my name, email address, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. As Stinneford puts it, “The truth is that the Supreme Court in Miranda didn`t pay much attention to what the term `forced` means.” (“Coerced” is the word used in the Fifth Amendment.) Here`s his key point: In Miranda, the court flirted with the idea that certain types of pressure tactics and tricks could constitute coercion, but never really came to that conclusion. The court also flirted with the idea that the detention interrogation itself could be coercive because of the pressure associated with the interrogation, but never really came to that conclusion. Since the court never ruled that these practices constituted coercion (and in fact never determined what “forced” means), many of the practices hated by the Miranda court are still used today. As long as the police issue the necessary warnings and receive the required waiver, they can always keep the accused alone in a room and interrogate him for hours, using psychological pressure and tricks to extract confessions. Since the Miranda decision, the Supreme Court has ruled on many cases that appear to limit its scope, as Barry Friedman explained in The Wages of Stealth Overruling. Stinneford`s analysis influences how we assess these recent cases. According to Miranda`s standard presentation as purely prophylactic, Miranda erosion may not be a major constitutional problem.
While the constitutional fundamental right remains protected, the new cases only reduce Miranda from an important prophylactic rule to a slightly smaller prophylactic rule. But if Stinneford`s account is correct, Miranda`s erosion could further undermine the Basic Law. For example, in the recent decision Berghuis v. Thompkins, the court found that Miranda authorized the use of a defendant`s confession, which he had made in custody after hours of fruitless interrogation. If pressure tactics and detention are coercion, it is an erosion of the Basic Law, not just an erosion of prophylaxis. I suspect it is important to distinguish such extra-constitutional prophylaxis from constitutional decision-making rules. If constitutional violations are real but difficult to detect, or if the relevant standard is difficult to formulate or enforce, courts may develop a clearer rule of application than the underlying standard. This type of doctrine is related to direct constitutional significance and is relatively uncontroversial. If, on the other hand, the Court recognizes that it goes beyond constitutional requirements, it acts within the extreme limits of its powers.
These sample phrases are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “prophylactic.” The views expressed in the examples do not represent the views of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. borrowed from the late Latin prophylacticon “measure of protection against disease”, borrowed from the late Greek prophylactic, a name derived from neutral from the Greek prophylactic entry 1 The lesson of Miranda and Dickerson is perhaps that the authority of legal doctrine depends on the type of rule it is: constitutional doctrine has much more authority than extraconstitutional prophylaxis. “Prophylactic”. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prophylactic. Retrieved 11 October 2022. Before any questioning, the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him or her and that he or she has the right to the presence of a mandated or appointed lawyer. Find out which words work together and create more natural English with the Oxford Collocations Dictionary app. For those who don`t study criminal cases and observe police procedures, Miranda noted that in the absence of a demonstrably superior alternative: join our community to access Oxford University Press` latest language learning and assessment tips! borrowed from the medieval Latin prophylacticus, borrowed from the Greek prophylactic, from prophylact-, follows in the nominal derivation of prophylássein “watch before a place, be on guard, (middle voice) be on guard against, take precautions against” + -ikos -ic entry 1 â more in prophylaxis The subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Dickerson v. The United States also emphasizes that Miranda is ultimately not a prophylactic rule in this sense. There, the court ruled that Congress did not have the power to annul Miranda because of the constitutional status of this case.
Notably, the word “prophylactic” was used only once in the decision, citing an earlier case (which it distinguished). Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with an *.