Orrin Hatch: “I want to respond to remarks made by my colleague from Massachusetts about criticism of Professor Cassell's scholarship.…”

“I want to respond to remarks made by my colleague from Massachusetts about criticism of Professor Cassell's scholarship. Academic debate about such issues as Miranda and the death penalty is robust and uninhibited. It is part of that debate that scholars will criticize the work of other scholars. The validity of that criticism depends, of course, on the merits of the particular claims. Professor Schulhofer and Professor Cassell have engaged in a particularly long-running debate about the merits of Miranda and its potential costs to law enforcement. Schulhofer has criticized Cassell's work in various law review articles, and Cassell has responded in other articles. The full debate spans dozens of pages in various law reviews. Some of the relevant articles are as follows: Paul G. Cassell, Miranda's Costs; En Empirical Reassessment, 90 Nw. U.L. Rev. 387 (1996) (suggesting that confession rates fell after Miranda); Stephen J. Schulhofer, Miranda's Practical Effect: Substantial Benefits and Vanishingly Small Social Costs, 90 Nw. U.L. Rev. 500 (1996) (agreeing that rates may have fallen modestly, but arguing against significance of this fact); Paul G. Cassell, All Benefits, No Costs: The Grand Illusion of Miranda's Defenders, 90 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1084 (1996) (responding to Schulhofer's criticisms, noting decline in crime clearance rates after Miranda); Stephen J. Schulhofer, Bashing Miranda is Unjustified--and Harmful, 20 Harv. J.…”