Miranda Rights Argumentative Analysis

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 second relevant point to make in support of the claim that accused people should be read their Miranda Rights is that these rights help avoid self-incrimination. For example, if these rights are not given, any statements made by the accused during interrogation may be turned against him or her while on trial. Additionally, if these rights are not given, the suspect may be pressured into a confession. In short, to maintain a fair and balanced legal system, people accused of a crime should be advised of their

The Sixth Amendment is part of the United States Bill of Rights and its clauses are related to criminal prosecutions. It states that every defendant has the right of speedy and public trial, impartial jury, to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to choose such in his favor and to have the aid of a layer in his defense. The right to an attorney’s assistance has been focused on two main issues throughout its development – the right to counsel and the right to an effective counsel.

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.

The three amendments that are used to protect the rights of those accused of a crime include, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Peak, 2015, p.181). The Fifth Amendment protects the accused against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and life, liberty, and property. Meaning no person will be forced to be a witness against themselves, they cannot be tried for the same offense twice, and their right to life, liberty, and property are protected under the law. (Peak, 2015, p.193). The Sixth Amendment is the right to counsel. Any person who is accused of a crime has the right to counsel for their defense, a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature of their crime which also includes Miranda rights, and to be confronted with the witness against him/her while also having witnesses of their own. (Peak, 2015, p.195). These three Amendments in summary mean to me, that any person who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty and their rights are just as important as anyone else. They have the natural born right to have their rights as citizens protected under the law, and ensure fair treatment from law enforcement officers.

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

The Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda Warning, were derived from the 5th and 6th amendments in which they guarantee all people who are taken into arrest the right to trial, council, and to be appointed a lawyer. Although not explicitly expressed in the constitution, the Miranda rights provide the necessary precautions for self-incrimination and proper trial by providing those who have been arrested or incarcerated a brief description of the rights the individual is guaranteed to. It also provides the means for lawfully gathering information such as confessions and testimony from criminals for use in a court and trial. Often individuals who are taken into custody are not fully aware of one’s rights, especially the right to maintain silent, and this in turn can lead to information being given that may lead to the accused to be unlawfully tried and placed in jail for long periods of time.

The sixth amendment of the Bill of Rights is about how an accused person has the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, the right to control witnesses against that person, and the right to a lawyer for their defense. This means that a suspect of a crime has the right to a fast and public trial by an impartial jury, the right to meet witnesses against the person, and the right to a lawyer to aid them. For example, a person does not have to wait for 20 years just for their trial like in the old times, now they can now have a fast trial and publicize it if they want. The accused also have the right to challenge the witness and they get the choice of having a lawyer or not. My argument for this amendment is that the accused do

The Sixth Amendment of the United States states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of 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 of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense (CRS Annotated Constitution, n.d.).” The Sixth Amendment offers seven rights to everyone; (1) a speedy trial; (2) a public trial; (3) an unbiased jury; (4) told the charges against him/her; (5) able to confront those against him/her; (6) able to provide a witness in his/her favor; (7) right to lawful guidance. The Sixth Amendment is extremely important because it protects the rights of those being accused with criminal charges. It ensures that the process of conviction is done fairly and no one is deprived of their rights and unfairly charged.

Miranda is specific to the right to counsel and against self-incrimination - 6th and 5th Amendments respectively - and is used in criminal proceedings rather than administrative matters (Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

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.

Pursuant to Miranda, the Prosecution bears the heavy burden of establishing the existence of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a suspect’s right to remain silent and to the presence or assistance of counsel, by a preponderance of the evidence. (Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 168.) As such, the validity of a Miranda waiver depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and whether the defendant was aware of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. (Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475 U.S. 422 (holding a valid waiver does not require that a defendant be informed of all information useful in making his decision or all information that might affect his decision to confess).) With that in mind, there is no requirement that a waiver be in writing. (Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 130 S.Ct. 2250.) A defendant who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights,

Its a simple statement that informs us of our legal rights. As we all know the Miranda rights is located in what we know as 'The Bill of Rights".But in reading the bill of rights we take notice that Amendement number 5 relates to the topic of the Miranda rights as well. It clearly speaks on the terms in which a person shall be held. Stating that in only cases of a grand jury indictment, public danger or land and naval forces. Amendment number six, The Miranda rights

A defendant must be advised of their rights anytime they are going to be interrogated in a manner where the answers can or will be incriminating towards them. Whenever I advise a suspect of their Miranda warnings I do so in a manner where they can understand what I am saying, and I am sure to have my body camera on while advising them. I read off the Miranda warnings in the event I have to go to court and the defendant is attempting to discredit me or my peers. The Miranda warnings are as follows. “You have the right to remain silent. Any statements made may be used against the defendant to to gain conviction. The right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present during questioning. For the indigent, a lawyer will be provided without