Miranda vs. Arizona and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

838 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Research Assignment: Miranda V Arizona Case

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments like every other law out there is used in ways other than what it was initially for, by being interpreted by stretch provisions according to what feels right. What was it meant for? The brutality to suspects who we're being accused of their so called "wrong doing" dictated what would eventually change the way we work suspects. The police force had not been given what proper provisions to follow when interrogating suspects of criminal charges giving them disadvantages on many occasions though out the course of law. Many suspects essentially didn't know there rights along with police officers which in turn would cause a huge confusion. What are the rights that are supposed to be given to a suspect if they had any? The Fifth Amendment by then had never been truly understood to its full extent which would then be an excuse to brutally interrogate criminals as hostile and inhuman components to get confessions out that may not always seem to be true. Would major trails concerning the peoples Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights lead to a change in the way law enforcement works with suspects?
The Escobedo V. Illinois case had captured the grand stage in 1966 for, a man named Danny Escobedo was denied his rights to obtain a lawyer during questioning by the Chicago Police Department. Escobedo was convicted for shooting and was taken to the police department for questioning. Escobedo had made numerous attempts trying to request a lawyer, but was not provided one violating his Sixth Amendment Rights: “The right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in their defense.” Unfortunately, Escobedo had confessed to the murdering which also violated the Fifth Amendment of “self-incrimination” being forced a confes...

... middle of paper ...

...nforcement. Officers had an upper hand when suspects did not know their rights making it easier for them to sneak tactics through to get confessions. Another reason they it as a disadvantage was because according to the dissent “some cases cannot be solved without confessions”. Also they implied the “welfare” of our society was at stake because it would let criminals run free, if the Miranda rights weren’t stated to them correctly. This was a “hazardous” experiment which could have a dismal outcome and prove to be very ineffective in the future. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion on the way the police officers had treated suspects amendment rights were “exaggerated” and that the outcome was only to favor the accused more favorably.
Our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have changed since the Miranda v. Arizona case got brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.

Show More
Related

  • Ernesto Miranda's Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona

    813 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Dwight Dexter Case Study

    693 Words  | 2 Pages

    The rights of Dwight Dexter in the Fifth Amendment were violated. The amendment prevents the government from prosecuting people unfairly. Accused cannot be jailed or have their property taken without due process

    Read More

  • False Confessions and the Norfolk Four Case

    2738 Words  | 6 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • The Arizona Constitution

    1739 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona’s Constitution was written sometime in 1910; amended, ratified, and approved by Congress in 1911. Then Arizona became the 48th state and the last adjoining state to be welcomed in the Union; on February 14, 1912. Since then the citizens of Arizona has amended their Constitution many times. The Constitution consists of thirty articles. There were quite a lot of events that impacted the process of Arizona becoming its own state. The first section will examine the events that developed Arizona Constitution. The next section will summarize the powers and functions of Arizona's three branches of government. In the following section will discuss the procedures for amending this Constitution. Finally, a reflection on the amendment process for the Arizona Constitution will close this document.

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected.

    Read More

  • The 6th Amendment and Criminal Proceedings

    839 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).

    Read More

  • The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment

    2077 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

    1709 Words  | 4 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda confession was unconstitutionally received at the trial and his conviction was overturned. Later, Miranda was retried and convicted of the crimes without his confession. Miranda v. Arizona created the nationally known “Miranda rights” we know today. Miranda gives a person their basic rights and remains a good law today. I chose this case because the impact it has made. Now police officers must read an individual his or her Miranda rights across the nation. When police officers read a suspect their Miranda rights it allows law enforcement to continue with the legal process. There is no misunderstanding when the rights are read often time today the reading of Miranda rights is tape recorded to have evidence they were read to an individual. The Court held that prosecutors could not use reports stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants except they established the use of procedure of safety procedures "effective to secure the ability against self-incrimination."

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Fifth Amendment Essay

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Public Defenders

    2207 Words  | 5 Pages

    Historically, the right to counsel was only guaranteed in federal criminal court (Wice, 2005). A person charged with a crime in the state court did not have the right to legal representation. Law scholar Professor Mason Beaney explained this by saying, “only a few states guaranteed the right to appointed counsel…In most jurisdictions counsel was appointed in none but the most serious cases, often only when the crime was punishable by death” (Wice, 2005, p. 3). Many defendants, who were poor, illiterate, and uneducated had to face the justice system without legal assistance (Smith, 2004, p. 579). Los Angeles County started one of the first public defender programs in 1914, spreading slowly to other counties (Neubauer & Fradella, 2011, p. 176). By the 1960’s, less than a dozen states still refused to provide attorneys to defendants unable to afford one (Smith, 2004).

    Read More

  • Ethical Issues In Plea Bargaining Research Paper

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    When our founding fathers incorporated the sixth amendment into the Bill of Rights, never had they imagined that a large amount of defendants would surrender their right to a fair trial for a non-trial procedure based on promises of minimized punishment.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Miranda's Rights Against Self-Incrimination

    1010 Words  | 3 Pages

    Arizona case debated in the Supreme Court. The concern remained “Does the police exercise the questioning of individuals without informing them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination which violate the Fifth Amendment?” Early in 1963, an eighteen year old women was abducted and raped in the area of Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigates the case, and shortly found and detained a mentally disturbed man. The name man name is Ernesto Miranda, Miranda was twenty three years old at the time of the arrested. He admitted that he had abducted and raped the woman after two hours of questioning. When he confessed up to the crime, Miranda was sentenced for kidnapping and rape. However, when Miranda was arrested, he was not told his rights that are stated in the Fifth Amendment. At the court appeal, Miranda’s lawyers reveal that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, he was not told that everything that he said could be used against him. The end of 1966, the United States Supreme Court provided support to the defendant side. (McBride,

    Read More

More about Miranda vs. Arizona and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Open Document