Miranda v. Arizona

[Blue Rectangle]

In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent...

Constitutionally sound...

...and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights.

...pure fabrication.

The Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms.  Does this mean I can sue the government because the police didn't drop by my house and say, "by the way, you have the right to bear arms."

Just as ignorance of the law is not a defense, so should ignorance of your rights not be the fault of the government.

[Blue Rectangle]

The decision is definitely constitutionally sound.

In order for a confession to be valid, it must be given freely and voluntarily. This is a principle of the common law, not the creation of an activist court.

No one is saying that confessions should not be voluntary or that the court created this requirement.  They did, however, create a radically new definition of what voluntary means.  If Miranda Rights are part of common law, then why didn't the U.S. court system notice that for almost two centuries?

I consider it very activist to shift the requirement from restricting the police from certain actions to mandating that the police act as legal council for the accused.

[Blue Rectangle]

If Miranda Rights are part of common law, then why didn't the U.S. court system notice that for almost two centuries?

That is not what I said. Voluntariness is required under the common law: not the Miranda warning.

You stated that the Miranda warning was "vital" to a voluntary confession.  If it is so vital, why did the court not realize that in Brown v. Walker?

But the Miranda warning is an essential safeguard to ensure that the confession is truly voluntary: otherwise, the suspect may be browbeaten, pressured, and coerced by prolonged questioning. And this was acknowledged seventy years before Miranda v. Arizona in Brown v. Walker. It is not just a question of the suspects' rights, but also a question of whether a confession in such a case is reliable.

Right, so Brown v. Walker already limited the interrogation tactics that could be used by the police.  That is constitutionally sound and not activist.  The Miranda decision created out of thin air a requirement that the police give legal advice to suspects.  This new requirement is a good idea, but that doesn't mean it is constitutionally mandated.  This is the textbook definition of judicial activism: creating a new law because it is a good idea, not because the constitution demands it.