EDICTS, MIRANDA AND REMEMBRANCE

The edict seems to have gone out of fashion in the western world. The concept that a head of state, or his/her minister could issue a proclamation purporting to exercise the force of law has clearly fallen out of favour. It still seems to flourish in certain societies in the form of decrees, proclamations and fatāwā. It has generally been issued by emperor’s, kings and such like, and few of them are left. It is usually an indication of their thinking in relation to the spiritual welfare of the populace, and is therefore generally associated with some form of religious bias. In western society it has often been used to promote the destruction of one faith by another - Catholics persecuting Protestants, Protestants persecuting Catholics, both persecuting Jews. In the east, in 1635, the Sakoku Edict, issued by the then Japanese Shogun, was to eliminate Catholic influence in Japan. On the odd occasion an edict was issued to promote tolerance. Surprisingly, it appears that these types of edict were more popular in the 4^th Century, e.g. the Edict of Toleration issued by the Emperor Galerius in 311, which removed all previous restrictions on the Christian religion, allowing it and all other religions to be practiced throughout the Roman Empire.

Which brings us to the 13^th June 313, with the Edict of Milan proclaimed in the names of the Emperor Constantine the Great, who ruled the western parts of the empire, and Valerius Licinius, who ruled the East. The two Augusti were in Milan to celebrate the wedding of Constantine's younger half-sister Constantia with Licinius. The Edict was posted in Nicomedia. Versions of the edict's text were preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and, more completely and accurately, in Lactantius’' On the Deaths of the Persecutors, written before 315. The substance of the edict was that property previously confiscated from Christians, such as meeting places and other properties be returned.

...the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception...

It directed the provincial magistrates to execute this order at once with all energy, so that public order may be restored and the continuance of the Divine favour may "preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state."

As usual with religious matters there were questions of property rights to be sorted. Property implies income and income leads to taxation, and any enlightened ruler would know how to make a profit.

In the continuing matter of liberty and citizen’s rights on the 13^th June 1966, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the matter of Miranda –v- Arizona that the police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning them. There were other cases pending the same question before the Court, but the Miranda case lead the way. What is noteworthy about the cases is that the defending lawyers saw a glaring problem which required specific guidance and clarification by the Court of the Constitutional rights of the citizen brought before the law. Miranda’s conviction on the basis of an illegally obtained confession was overturned. The Court stated, inter alia:

Ernesto Miranda

The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him […] If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.

Miranda was sent for retrial and the prosecution was obliged to properly prepare and present its case without the confession. Surprise, surprise – good witness and forensic evidence brought about a conviction in 1967 for kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old woman.   Miranda was sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years. He was paroled in 1972. After his release, he returned to his old neighborhood and made a modest living autographing police officers' "Miranda cards" (containing the text of the warning, for reading to arrestees). He was stabbed to death during an argument in a bar on January 31, 1976.

It is unfortunate that in order to preserve the liberties we have, one must at times side with what may be reprehensible; but, the reprehensible usually has a way of exposing itself in the long run. It is certainly better and healthier to defend the principles of freedom and justice for all individuals, than for the state to imprison, crush or kill the innocent. 

The 13^th June also celebrates the birth of writers William Butler Yeats (1865) and Dorothy L. Sayers (1893), as well as the actors Mary Wickes (1910)  and Paul Lynde (1926).

The wonderful Mary Wickes was in over 131 films between 1935 and 1995. A sixty year career, she was always a pleasure to see and hear. She stole just about every scene she was in as the wisecracking second banana. She was a consistent favourite.

This film made in 1942 with the Andrews Sisters, is an early example of her work, along with a number of others of the golden age of Hollywood. It’s also one of the few out of copyright. She appear quite early on in this wartime propaganda piece.

Paul Lynde was another of those character actors who never put a foot wrong. He reminds one a bit of Leonard Rossiter.