IMUNC had ceased operation after IMUNC 2017. Information on this website may have been outdated. Please contact [email protected] for participation certificate requests and other queries.

US Supreme Court

Once again, the Supreme Court is pushed to the edge because of the Miranda warning.

34 years ago, at the very same court, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the rulings of perhaps one of the most controversial cases in the constitutional history of the United States, Miranda v. Arizona. From then, the rights for suspects to be read their rights to remain silent, to hire a lawyer or be assigned a free lawyer, have become routine in daily policing throughout the United States. Soon, from Canada to Australia, from Switzerland to Hong Kong, national legislatures followed and similar rights of the suspects were established.

During this period, some concluded that the power of the rule of law can be seen in the harmonization of procedural and substantive justice, and the progress of civilization can be found in the protection of law offered to the weak. Some, however, lament that justice and order do not exist. Villans walk the streets with their proud attitude, and the escape of the outlaws were common. Since the decision, the controversy around the Miranda warning has never stopped.

At the beginning of the new millennium, with the voice of the crowd on the Constitution Avenue, the marble temple opened its doors for Charles Dickerson. Nine justices will decide the final fate of the Miranda warning here.