Essay

The legal question in which the U.S. Supreme Court resolved in this case was whether or not statements made by an individual under custodial police interrogation are admissible against him. Additionally, the focus was also placed on the issue of whether procedures that assure the individual is granted his privilege (5th Amendment) not to be compelled to incriminate himself

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

To tackle the housing affordability, first of all, it is crucial to lift the supply of housing as it will release the pressure on the housing price. Nevertheless, the supply of housing is inelastic as it requires an adequate fund, time, approval from the Government. Besides, the housing system is heavily dependent on the private sector. Thus, the Government should provide initiatives for housing providers to shift the supply of houses in the market. Australia would follow the policies from other countries to tackle the housing affordability. However, it has to fit in the Australian context. These policies might work well in other places but it does not mean that it will be applicable in Australia. The Singapore Government has a public

This is an important debate for people accused of a crime because these rights could mean the difference between freedom and imprisonment. The two positions argue whether or not suspects should be read their Miranda Rights. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration. For example, evidence indicates that these rights could help guilty suspects avoid punishment. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that they will not. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that suspects should be read their Miranda Rights is the stronger position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that these rights

Along with the order in which the police investigate, interrogate and read suspects their rights, officers must be sure that the suspect understands his or her rights. If a suspect lacks fluent use of the English language, an interpreter in the native language is appropriate. Two questions follow the four statement Miranda Rights, these questions are:

1. Understand how legislation, frameworks, codes of practice and policies relate to positive behaviour support.

Imagine a man sitting in a strange room, afraid of the people there with him – they are people that could ruin his life forever if he says the wrong thing. He is panicking and he feels like everything in the world is working against him to get him in trouble. He is in a police station with officers questioning him intensely and he does not know how seriously they will take what he says. What if he misspeaks? What if he accidentally says something he does not mean in the context the police will use? These are fears that go through the minds of people taken into custody and accused of committing crimes. Ernesto Miranda was in a similar situation when he was being questioned based on circumstantial evidence linking him to a kidnapping and rape.

Knowing ones rights when being arrested is very important, it is the best way to avoid self incrimination. The government has done a good job in assuring that all individuals who are arrested are read their Miranda rights and made fully aware of the rights that they are guaranteed as well as providing fair trial to all who are accused of a crime based on the rule set by the presumption of innocence: “innocent until proven guilty”. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the Miranda rights were

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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda

In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court ruled on four separate cases that involved custodial interrogations. In each circumstance the defendant was interrogated by law enforcement investigators. In all of these cases, the interrogation took place in a secluded room that was totally closed off from the outside world. During all of these interrogations the suspects were never provided any form of notification about their right to counsel or their right to remain silent. As a result of these interrogations, three verbal admissions and one signed written admission were secured and admitted at their individual trials. In all of these cases the Supreme Court affirmed one case and reversed the three other case rulings. As a result, the Supreme Court rule that being told that you have the right to remain silent before an interrogation is an absolute right. They also ruled having legal counsel present before interrogation is an absolute right. This watershed Supreme Court decision changed the practice of law enforcement interrogation in very specific and positive ways.

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

The goal of this research paper is to remind people that as long as one can fulfill the duties of being a citizen in the United States of America then there are rights that protect one from the government. One could imagine what the world would be like if there were no Miranda rights. Government would take complete advantage of that and others could assume that prisons would really become overcrowded and taxes would shoot up even higher due to the absence of Miranda rights in the criminal justice system. One could assume that life in fact would not be as sweet and worth living knowing that the police can haul someone into jail and interrogate that person until a confession surfaces due to duress. Others have said that Miranda rights saved lives, some even say that without it the criminal justice has failed the citizens of the United States, this is the purpose one seeks the answers to these burning questions.

However, in many cases, the waiver is provided through questions that aim to discover whether the suspect understands the Miranda rights and their possible use. The only requirements in this regard claim that the waiver must be voluntary, intelligent, and knowing. In the present case, Ernesto Miranda suffered from extreme mental problems and had inadequate education. Therefore, it was very possible that the man did not fully understand the situation, let alone his legal rights for protection.

The feeling of anxiety and nervousness when blue lights flash in the rearview mirror is a terrible feeling all in itself. Even though a person may be innocent, he or she may still feel like police have already found them to be guilty even before they have been questioned. The reading of the Miranda Rights gives citizens a sense of still feeling human and not like a criminal. The feeling of still being treated as an innocent person leads to trusting law enforcement, rather than going against them. In the book Just Authority, Jonathan Jackson researched citizen’s behavior towards trusting police and he believes that “Thus viewed, trust involves the belief that others have our best interest at heart: one can assume that the police will act in

The event was educational, I learned from more about the discrepancies of the Miranda rights. Dr.Roger ask use to change out mind set so we can understand the Miranda Right and how many individual don’t understand the content. The Miranda right is open to interpretation by state to state; they are multiple of variation including different reading level from the third grade to post-college and lengths. When we were question about part of Miranda Warning, I missed 2 out of the 5 part. Dr. Roger said the most common part missed is the fifth component asserting of the rights at any time and about 45% getting the other three right. The believe assumption that everybody knows their right clearly, whoever it is not true we miss part of our rights