Document Type

Article

Publication Title

University of Chicago Law Review

Abstract

Mr. Markman's response to "Reconsidering Miranda" misses the article's central point, which was to offer a theory of fifth amendment compulsion and to consider the legitimacy of Miranda within the framework of that theory. Mr. Markman has no theory, and he makes no effort to explain why mild pressures and small financial penalties sometimes constitute compulsion. He invites us to treat police interrogation as a category unto itself and to hold permissible some pressures that would be found compelling outside the custodial setting. He declines even to consider whether his less protective notion of compulsion is justified by differences in context, though his reason for avoiding comparisons becomes clear when we spell out those differences. In police interrogation, the suspect is cut off from communication with any lawyer, friend, or neutral observer. Questioned in a threatening environment by those who hold him physically under their control, the suspect "is painfully aware that he literally cannot escape a persistent custodial interrogator."

First Page

950

DOI

https://doi.org/10.2307/1599831

Volume

54

Publication Date

1987

Download

Share

COinS