The Balance Between Individual Rights And State Power

In1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that the police mustinform the suspects in custody of their Miranda rights before they get interrogated.Designed to protect the basic rights of individuals, the Miranda ruling, however, hasaroused a hot debate among the public. People have questioned both the constitutionalityand the effects of the ruling.The controversy over the Miranda rights reminds people of the nation-building era inAmerican history when there was a heated debate over the form of state structure. At thetime, the federalists believed in the powers of a unified government while theanti-federalists trusted more in the self-governance of each state. At last, both sides madegreat compromises over the adoption of federalism.By drawing upon the social contract theory of John Locke, this thesis holds that thereis a fundamental reason behind both the Miranda controversy and the conflict over thechoice of federalism: they both tried to strike a balance between individual rights and statepower. In addition, historical experience drawn from the choice of federalism demonstratesthat the proper balance can only be achieved through repeated trials and compromises,which could shed some light on the development of the Miranda rights in the future.This thesis begins with an introduction to the social contract theory of John Locke,which serves as the analytical tool of this paper. Then it introduces the Mirandacontroversy and the historical conflict over the choice of federalism and explores thefundamental reason behind them. Finally, by reviewing the evolvement of federalism, thisthesis concludes that the proper balance can only be achieved through repeated trials andcompromises and that, in new circumstances, Miranda is likely to become a permanentfeature of American politics during the course of evolvement.