Miranda and the police : the impact of the Miranda decision in medium size Missouri cities

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Miranda V. Arizona that persons questioned by the police, if they are in any significant way deprived of their freedom of movement, must be warned that they have a right to remain silent, that any statement they make may be used against them, and that they have the right to either retained or appointed counsel. The famous decision has been the source of much controversy with supporters of the Court hailing a new era of justice and critics predicting doom for law and order. Spokesmen for police forces have been among the most outspoken opponents of the decisions. Recent studies questioning the degree to which edicts of the courts actually have significant impacts on society and particularly on those who are charged with administering the court's orders, have suggested very real questions about the effect on society of the Miranda decision. Police officers in several medium sized Missouri cities were interviewed and observed to measure their feelings about their place in society, their role, their feelings about the courts and the Miranda decision in the course of their jobs. Most of the police officers were cognizant of the Miranda decision. They indicated that they carried out its requirements in their work. On the other hand many officers indicated that they were aware of methods of administration which would result in the warning having minimal effect. Some officers were skeptical about the rigor of their brother officers in applying the Miranda rules. The reactions of the police officers are particularly significant in the context of their characteristics and attitudes. Most police officers feel isolated from civilian society. They perceive a hostile environment in which they are required to function as a paramilitary defense force against an army of crime. The attitude of isolation which the policemen display seems to increase in proportion to the size of the city in which they work. The officers who feel more isolated also tend to be more hostile toward the terms of the Miranda decision and more apt to disregard the requirements of the decision. Not surprisingly the police officers seem to regard the United States Supreme Court as more of an obstacle to their work than as an ally. On the other hand the police regard their local courts as being fair and even perhaps sympathetic. Support for the Miranda decision among police officers is limited. However officers with more education, those who attended police academies and those who feel less isolated tend to indicate greater support for the decision as measured by a Guttman scale. Support or hostility toward Miranda indeed represented a breaking point in attitude and demographic characteristics generally. Hence it might be concluded that two distinct subgroups of policemen having differing attitudes and characteristics exist. Within each of the subgroups the characteristic attitudes are widely dispersed. In the terms in which the matter is generally debated, the Miranda decision would seem to be of limited importance in the administration of justice in the medium sized Missouri cities which are studied. The police can evade some of the effects of the decision and some of the effects, according to the police, are of limited significance. However the Miranda decision has had an effect upon the police themselves. The police interpret the decision as an attack upon law enforcement. In this view they have the support of some segments of society. Within the police profession there is a subgroup which supports the Miranda decision, thereby fracturing the consistency of the cleavage and reducing the pressure on the political system induced by the conflict of views.