Why Is Miranda Rights Important

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.

According to a PBS article on the case, the Supreme Court justified their decision by the fact that “police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.” Furthermore, the article elaborates, “The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse “to be a witness against himself,” and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.” According to an article by the Legal Resource Library, “The Supreme Court found that police officers need to provide suspects with their Miranda rights in order to safeguard a person’s right not to self-incriminate.” The Surpeme Court wanted to ensure that the police did not take advantage of suspects and induce confessions. The PBS article explained that the Court wanted suspects to tell their side of the story “without fear,

effectively, and in a way that eliminates the evils in the interrogations process”.

The Miranda Rights apply to most trials.

According to a New York Times article, the Supreme Court ruled after 1966, that the Miranda Rights do not apply and that officers do not need to read the Miranda Rights in offline siuations that are “immediate threats to public safety.” They are justified in their ruling, because the fifth amendment states that suspects are required ot answer in situations regarding the Grand Jury, “land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of War or public

danger.”

One good example is the case regarding the Nigerian American bomber of 2009. In this case, the bomber confessed to a nurse and FBI agents about his crime before his surgery and before hearing his Miranda Rights. After his surgery and hearing his Miranda Rights the suspect remained silent. In his trial, the lawyer asked the judge to suppress the terroist’s early statement. The judged ruled that the early statements were valid because, according to the same New York Times article, “The statement to the nurse had been voluntary and lucid…, and that the 50-minute questioning [by the FBI] was a “fully justified” use of the public safety exception.

The Miranda Rights had changed how police approached suspects in custody. Poilice had to tell or read suspects about their rights. If suspects will know their rights, they are able to speak more freely and can be protect themselves. The Miranda Rights will apply to most instances. The Miranda Rights are not applied in cases where the situation was threat to public safety. In order to insure the safety of citizens and allow cops to get as much information as possible from the suspect, the Miranda Rights can be withheld.