Miranda Rights In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case. Miranda came about in 1966, when a 23-year-old, name Miranda, was arrested and transported from his home to the police station for questioning in connections with a kidnapping and a rape case. Miranda was kind of poor and uneducated. At the station the police questioned him for two hours. After this two hours of questioning the police obtained a written confession that in turn was used in court against him. Miranda was undoubtedly found guilty. Miranda v Arizona went all the way to the Supreme Court. There the Supreme Court ruled that the police do have a responsibility to inform a subject of an interrogation of their constitutional rights. The constitutional rights have to do with self-incrimination, and the right to counsel before, during and after questioning. 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 actual Miranda warning is very short and covers all of person’s rights. The actual Miranda warning is as follows: 1. You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to an attorney and have him present with you while you are being questioned. 4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish. 5. You can decide a... ... middle of paper ... ...mation they have given is admissible in court. A defendant that speaks any language has the right afforded to them under the constitution to have their rights, and making sure they understand them is a very important point in the investigation. Understand this though; the last section of the Miranda rights is not a formal part. An interrogator does not have to read this part, but it is highly protected to conserve the sustance of the case. Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights. I hope in this paper I have made people more aware of what exactly are the Miranda rights. It is very crucial to understand these incase you are involved in an interrogation sometime in ones life. You have the rights afforded to you under the constitution, and it is important you exercise those rights. Works Cited: Lyman, D. Michael; Criminal Investigation, The Art and Science; 3rd edition, 2002 Prentice Hall. Pgs. 188-200.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
...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.
Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona have great impacts on the United States criminal justice system. The decision of Mapp v. Ohio ultimately aids in the strengthening of the Fourth Amendment with the extension of the exclusionary rule. Until this ruling, states did not have to obey this rule and could get away with warrantless searches. With this order, the privacy of United States citizens is safeguarded. Moreover, the Supreme Court created the “Miranda rights” as a result of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights establish that upon a person 's arrest, the police is mandated to inform that individual of his basic rights, which include “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed” (9). Essentially, people are given the right to not make any “self-incriminating statements”
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: 1. What is the difference between a. and a. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. 2.
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 ... ...
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.
The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court case to a code used by law enforcement during custodies and investigations.
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
...ained in their questioning. Officers commonly have small cards with the Miranda warnings on them so they don’t forget or skip over a part of ones right, if this does occur evidence still cannot be properly obtained because the person was not fully warned of all their rights. Currently, the only unwarned questioning that can occur is if the officer believes the public is in some type of danger. For example, if police come across a man standing in a convenience store that fits the description of recent thefts in a nearby neighborhood and the man runs once police confront him and is later caught and searched, when upon the search they realize he has an empty shoulder holster. In this scenario the public is in potential danger, the police can ask him where the gun is hidden without reading the man his rights and it would not be violating his Fifth Amendment rights.
The Miranda rights ensure a fair trial for everyone. The rights ensure that the accused has fair representation. Everyone wherathe suspected of a crime or not should be entitled to a fair trial. Police should be required to say this, so that people who don’t know their rights can be protected by the constitution. If people didn’t have the rights this would lead to an unfair trial that will be up to the government who wins. These rights make sure that the government doesn’t control the people. The United States of America stands for freedom and equality. The Miranda rights protect the freedoms of the
...fessions that were made were coerced or voluntary and to set a fair trial for that defendant. It is the right for arresting officers to read the accuser his or her rights because if the courts weren't fair was the purpose of having one. The Miranda Rights does serve a purpose and that's to inform the defendants of his rights before self incrimination therefore; it is up to the defendant to waive their rights. This wouldn't be America if people were guilty before they were proven innocent. . I agree with the courts if the defendant makes a statement before the officer has a chance to read him or her rights that the statement should be used in the court of law. The alternative for an unfair trial could separate Americans for years. We can have two different classes fighting one class to be equal and this could create great ciaos that can destroy our country for years.
23-year-old Ernesto Arthur Miranda as a suspect in the two crimes. Miranda had a prior
The results of this case led to the creation of the “Miranda rights”, which were to address the “widespread ignorance of the law”. The phrase “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney…” has been a series of phrases that the American people have grown used to (“What are Your Miranda Rights?”). I grew up hearing it in dramatized police and criminal TV shows, however I never knew why it existed. Therefore, I chose to research this case. I had not even heard of Miranda v. Arizona prior to taking US Government so, it was good being able to explore some of the practices that I had no idea had so must story behind it. This case in particular made me realize that all though Miranda walked away free from this due to a technicality, it helped in creating a change so that this type of confusion would not happen
The author NOLO (2018) delineates the consequences of law enforcement officers failing to read a suspect their Miranda warning. First, if an officer fails to read a suspect their Miranda warning their statements could be deemed inadmissible in court. A Strong emphasis is placed on the term could because there are exceptions to the Miranda rule. The author Hall (2015) promulgates that the Miranda rule can be excluded when suspects volunteer information. Second, the Miranda warning rules exception comes into play when officers ask a question for the sole purpose information and could not lead to incriminating statements. Thirdly, the Miranda rule is excluded when officers ask a question that is a direct relation to preserve public safety.
According to Gina Fredericks Jones, Miranda warnings are necessary in protecting the rights of the people. Jones believes that each citizen has particular rights and should not be subject to "heavy-handed tactics" by police and thus