Question

are the societal benefits of protecting the constitutional rights of the accused outweighed by the potential loss of evidence when a criminal defendant either chooses not to make a statement, or in the case of thompson, makes a statement, which is later suppressed?

Answer 1

Protecting the constitutional rights of the accused ensures due process and a fair judicial system, and this protection outweighs the potential loss of evidence. This principle is deeply embedded in the U.S. justice system, as seen in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, which requires informing suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights during police interrogations.

Step-by-step explanation:

The societal benefits of protecting the constitutional rights of the accused are of considerable importance and are intended to outweigh the potential loss of evidence that comes from a defendant choosing not to make a statement or having a statement suppressed due to a violation of these rights. The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona established the requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights against self-incrimination and their right to counsel during interrogations to protect their Fifth Amendment rights. This decision underpins the importance the Court places on due process and the protections of those accused of a crime, balancing these rights with the need to prosecute crimes effectively. While protecting these rights may sometimes make it more challenging for the state to secure a conviction, this practice is seen as a necessary part of ensuring a fair judicial system and preventing abuses of power.