Argumentative Essay On Miranda Rights

The Bill of Rights is one of the most important things in the American government .The Bill of Rights has 10 Amendments. The fifth one however is one of the important one. The fifth Amendment deals with police procedures. Along with basic Constitutional limits, or in other words guidelines that Congress has to follow. The Fifth Amendment is a one of the most important Amendments because it gives people the rights to speech and privacy, the fifth doesn’t let people be charged with the same felony twice, and it gives citizens the right to a fair trial.

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

Everyone should read their Miranda rights before they enter the courtroom (thesis statement.)to be proven innocent or guilty.

In 1964, after Miranda 's arrest, but before the Court heard his case, the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of a lawyer is violated. But do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights before they question that person? (Supreme Court)

The U. S. Const. amend. IV, states that the rights of the people are to be secure in their homes and person, papers and effects, shall not be violated by unreasonable search and seizure, and no warrants shall be issued unless it is supported by probable cause. [2] Probable cause clearly states that a person, items, and places to be searched must be approved by a judge or magistrate to give officers the legal right to move forward. The U. S. Const. amend. V provides as a safe guard to prevent officials from illegally gathering self-incriminatory statements; therefore, the Miranda warning is issued to provide individuals the right to waive or invoke their constitutional rights to remain silent. [3] Of course, the U. S. Const. amend. VI, provides an individual the right to counsel. [4]

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

Miranda Warnings reaffirmed the rights afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: all U.S. citizens have the right to remain silent so as not to incriminate themselves, as well as the right to due process in a court of law before a jury of their peers.

These amendments make it known that all people have the right to choose whether or not to speak when being questioned, consult with an attorney, be tried by and unbiased jury and be granted a public attorney if necessary (Document E). In the case of Ernesto Miranda, he did not know he had these rights. Therefore, the court could not see his confession as admissible. He was unaware that he could keep quiet if he wanted to and instead his inquisitors pushed him to confess. He did not know he had the right to a lawyer and therefore was on his own deciding how to go about the threat to his future. It has always been tradition that prosecutors could not take confessions into court if investigators used coercion or torture of any kind to gain the confession. This has been in place since the 1600s, as shown by the Laws of Connecticut Colony at the time, which stated “no man shall be forced … to confess any crime against himself” (Document B). This tradition has been present throughout centuries and has only been being more refined and updated as time goes on. The Miranda rulings allowed for yet another opportunity to revamp these rights not only by making sure that people have their rights, but also by making sure that they know explicitly that they have the

Without the Bill of Rights, a person in America would have no voice in their life and would be a slave to the government constantly living in a world where its potential is not being met. When a person is incriminated, it is necessary for the police to read the miranda rights to ensure the person incriminated understands the circumstances he or she is in, and what is provided for him. In the 4th document, it says, “as for the procedural safeguards, prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent…” By this statement being said to criminals, it lets them understand their rights are still within in them but are limited so they don’t create more harm to their lives. The miranda rights are protected the 5th amendment due to the fact that miranda rights are a part of due process. By having Miranda rights included in the Bill of Rights, it shows how important it is to America. This part of the Bill of Rights is extremely effective because it lets the criminal system of the government know that a citizen’s right is still there even though they are a criminal. Without the miranda rights, chaos would break out in the court systems because lawyers would be using the criminal’s words against him and wouldn’t give the criminal counsel. If the criminals were being mistreated in law, that means that the 14th amendment is

Miranda rights were created to help inform people of their constitutional rights when arrested. The officer during the arrest should read these rights to the person to prevent a faulty case. Knowing the rights of the constitution are important if someone ever encounters trouble with the law. The Miranda rights are as followed,

These rights are the right for the suspect to be silent, and the right to an attorney during interrogations. These rights are still required to be read to criminal suspects to this day, to make sure that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are followed. The U.S. Supreme Court made the Miranda Rights because there were many incidents of police violence to get confessions, which could lead to many false confessions. Also, with an attorney, suspects would no longer be afraid to tell their

to protect the rights of the accused must be taken by the police; simply “reading their rights” is insufficient. In Blackstock, a defendant with an IQ of 55 and diagnosed mental impairment was accused of aggravated sexual battery of a child. The court concluded that the defendant, based on his IQ, level of education, and mental capacity, cannot knowingly and willingly waive his Miranda rights without a clear demonstration of his understanding of those rights and the consequences of waiving them. If that accused defendant did not fully comprehend the consequences of waiving his rights, then that waiver was invalid and his statements could not be used against him. (State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200

In actual these three amendments in our Constitution aid as safeguards for the peoples of the United States who are on trial and work to guard them from wrongness and prejudices that may occur in the criminal justice system. The Miranda Rights were made so that the individual being arrested is completely conscious of their rights so that they can’t have them used against them.

The Miranda rights are not explicitly stated in the constitution, however the constitution does guarantee against self-incrimination by the 5th amendment and the right to council by the 6th amendment. Law enforcement officials are run by the department of justice, they are responsible for reading these rights to all people they arrest and in my opinion I feel that the officials do a good job of ensuring that all people they detain are read their Miranda rights.

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.