[On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Miranda v. Arizona decision, ruling in favor of the rights of the accused in interactions with law enforcement. That was one of those frustratingly rare but crucial moments when we see the Court at its best, helping move us closer to our founding ideals; so this week I’ve AmericanStudied a handful of such cases, leading up to this weekend post on Miranda!]
On three TV shows that illustrate different perspectives on and layers to the Miranda case and its effects.
- Law & Order (1990-present): I don’t entirely buy into the concept of “copaganda” (I think it’s almost always reductive when it comes to the individual cultural works in question), but there’s no doubt that the L&O franchise was in many ways especially interested in presenting (I wouldn’t say always endorsing, but at the very least presenting, and often endorsing) the perspectives of law enforcement. I would certainly say that’s the case when it comes to procedural issues like the Miranda Rights, which in my recollection were treated at best as a nuisance and at worst as a technicality that would too frequently let criminals go free. And here’s the thing: it seems clear that Ernesto Miranda did indeed commit the kidnapping and rape of which he was accused, and that the Supreme Court decision in his favor did allow him to go free; but I believe, as did the 5 Supreme Court Justices who ruled in Miranda’s favor, that we have to err on the side of protections for the accused in a system that is very fully stacked against them, even if that means that sometimes justice will not be served.
- When They See Us (2019): If you’re not already convinced of the need for such protections, I can’t insist strongly enough that you watch Ava DuVernay’s masterpiece of a miniseries, which fictionalizes the all-too-real (and all-too-relevant here in 2026) 1980s story of the “Central Park Five,” the young Black boys who were falsely accused of rape and assault, coerced into confessions through police misconduct, and spent years in prison as a result. If such misconduct could occur decades after the Miranda decision, I genuinely shudder to think how rampant, if not indeed standard, were such law enforcement abuses in the years before protections like the Miranda Rights became the norm. Does that mean that a striking percentage of accused criminals who confessed or were otherwise convicted through underhanded means might well have been innocent? You’re goddamn right it does.
- Homicide, “Three Men and Adena” (1993): Miranda likely committed the crime of which he was accused, while the Central Park Five definitely did not; but of course in many cases, the accused’s guilt and innocence are far less clear one way or the other. For a stunningly powerful cultural representation of that uncertainty, I point you to the best episode of this excellent show (which I would use as exhibit A for why the idea that cop shows are necessarily copaganda is incredibly simplistic), and one of the best hours of TV I’ve ever seen. I’m not suggesting that the law enforcement and justice systems give up on the idea of trying to determine who has committed crimes and to punish them appropriately (although my definition of appropriate punishments differs from that of many of my fellow Americans, and tends far more toward rehabilitation). But I am suggesting, indeed insisting, that everything about those processes is uncertain and contingent and, most importantly, human—which makes it that much more important that there be clear and consistent procedures to make sure that the power of the state doesn’t overwhelm the most vulnerable humans.
Next series starts Monday,
Ben
PS. What do you think? Court cases you’d highlight?
Leave a Reply