A couple teenagers felt all Bonnie-and-Clyde when they held up that gas station attendant at knifepoint and got him to empty the cash drawer. (Shmoop disclaimer: This is for instructional purposes only; don't try it. Armed robbery is bad, m'kay?) But now they're sitting in a small room in a police station, surrounded by officers with guns. They can't leave. The officers have arrested them, probably handcuffed them, and brought them to the station. Those two kids aren't feeling so powerful now, are they? They know who holds the cards at this point.
What's to stop the police from abusing their power in situations like that, even if someone has just committed a crime? Well, the Supreme Court for one. The Justices had heard lots of cases of police misconduct with suspects in custody that resulted in forced confessions and self-incriminating statements. A big part of the Miranda v. Arizona decision had to do with trying to return some degree of power to the suspect.
Even if they'd just held up a 7-Eleven.
Questions About Police Misconduct
- Why didn't the majority believe that police should have unlimited power when it comes to trying to solve a case or bring a criminal to justice?
- What did the dissent say about police misconduct?
- Why did the majority think that even criminals should have some power during their interrogation?
Chew on This
Police cannot be trusted to use their power responsibly, so it's up to the government and the courts to set rules and regulations to limit that power.
It's the responsibility of the police to keep the people safe, therefore they should have the power they need to do that job.