Miranda Rights
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed to you” This may be differ from state to state as long as the concept is conveyed they was read their rights. Miranda Rights is mandatory across the United States due to the Miranda v. Arizona. In the following will explain what the 3 branches Judicial, Executive, and the Legislative have done to enforce this law or to change it, as well as the effect on the people.
The Judicial Branch seems to hold most of the weight on the Miranda Rights Law. The judicial court is the branch that interprets the laws. Yet the Supreme Court has the final say so. The year 1966 had a case of the Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was arrested and interrogated till he wrote a written confession that he raped and kidnapped a female. The debate was if his rights were being crossed against the 5th amendment. The Miranda rights actually are not a law but must be read to each arrested person due to the interception of the constitution. The 5th and 6th amendment stating that they have the right to have consul and the right to be silent.
The legislative branch is the branch that makes the law, for the good of the people through congress. They declared that any arrested or suspect in custody was to be read and completely understand their rights from the Supreme Court which they agreed too and redirected back to the judicial branch. Yet they make it clear to the officers that they do have to read them and make sure that they understand all of their rights. To know that they understand the officer would ask them do you understand and most would expect a yes or no answer. Many officers would recite the speech in a second language, most commonly Spanish.
The speech is broken down to many rights. You have the right to remain silent, so you can stop answering questions at anytime. Anything you say or do can be used against you in the court of law means that anything that you admit or alibi that you use will if wanted to be used in the court. You have the right to a attorney if you can not afford one, one will be appointed.
Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can no t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest and subsequent questioning and investigation may continue. These are liberties that were afforded to suspected criminals in the Miranda Vs Arizona. However, with every rule there also exceptions like: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, and Berghuis v. Thompkins.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
This is derived from the rights Americans have to not be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. But, the Fifth Amendment also protects against double jeopardy and gives people charged with a felony the right to a grand jury indictment (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Double jeopardy basically states that if a conviction or acquittal was reached in a criminal case, the person can no longer be tried again for the same offense (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The procedural rights for self-incrimination are also applied to any custodial situations the police conduct. To ensure that statements, or confessions a suspect makes are allowed in court there is a two-prong tests that should be followed. First, is the person considered to be in a custodial situation and two, are the police intending to ask incriminating questions. If yes is the answers to both then the suspect must be read his or her rights. This is known as giving someone his or her Miranda rights derived from the famous case
The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them. These rights are known as the Miranda Warnings and include:
Miranda rights, also known as the Miranda warning, is a warning given by police in the United States to suspects in custody before they are interrogated. The name Miranda rights comes from the case Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court held that the admission of incriminating statements by a suspect who has not been read their rights, violates one's right to counsel. Therefore, if a police officer does not inform a suspect of their Miranda rights, they may not interrogate that person and cannot use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a court of law (Miranda Warning, 2014).... ... middle of paper ... ...
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (The Consitution of the United States, Article I) In conclusion,this can prove why miranda rights are important to american society with three reasons that are due process, provide a free attorney,and cops warning to citizens.Miranda rights are a prerequisite piece of information for citizens and police,citizens need to remember their miranda
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law.” Everyone knows the Miranda Warnings from either television shows or even they have been recited while placed under arrest. Why do are police officers required to recite these rights to a suspect? Where did they come from? What happens if an officer or detective fails to advice a suspect of these rights?”
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
What does this mean to you? Well if you are ever arrested for being suspected of a crime, the police are legally obligated to advise you of your Miranda rights. If they do not do this and they start to ask you questions, and interrogate you, then anything you say cannot be used against you in court, and you could have the charges dropped. The police are not supposed to question you at all unless you have been read your Miranda rights and you then waive those rights. You can waive your rights either verbally tell the officer you waive your rights, or by signing a rights waiver form.
The Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 ruling decided in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court felt that since an interrogation is a very intimidating spot to be on the suspect 's rights are automatically triggered. This includes the fifth amendment and the the sixth amendment which entitles a person to an attorney. They claimed that undoubtedly the fifth amendment is a privilege. Along with this case they also settled four other cases that were similarly close
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
Miranda Rights are important because they ensure the reliability of a suspect’s confession and that the suspect is aware of his/her rights while in custody. The Miranda Rights were implemented after the Miranda v. Arizona case that was brought to the Supreme Court. In this case, Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape, kidnapping, and robbery based on his confession to the police, without him being aware of the fifth and sixth amendments. The Supreme Court ruled that his disclosure was not valid as a result of the Amendments.