Miranda Rights in Our Legal System Essay

1960 Words 8 Pages
Does the Miranda Rights benefit the defendant too much where as the courts throw out voluntary confessions? The Fifth Amendment clearly states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia. (U.S Constitution Fifth Amendment) When arresting citizens, officers must inform the individual of his or her rights or the statement that was said will be disregarded in the court of law. (U.S. Gov Info/Miranda: Right of Silence) These rights are called Miranda rights which protect citizens of the U.S. from self incrimination. (See cases Miranda v Arizona, Dickerson v United States and Escobedo …show more content…
Cassell also states that crime has increase after the Miranda laws were inforced from the years 1950-1965 he says "police officers solve crimes about 60% of the time but fell dramatically." According to Cassell about 70,000 cases each year become unsolved because of Miranda and criminals are set free to commit crimes again. The two court cases that still has litigation over till this day is the Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) and Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) The problem or issue is that when is a statement from a defendant coerced or voluntary? One of the things that produce the Miranda rule was the difficulty of determining whether a statement is voluntary or coerced. Stephen Sharpio says that "the courts were required to look at whole range of factors to decide whether or not the confession was voluntary." The courts say that "they will continue to look for the truth in all cases and give juries all reliable evidence to make the decision." Here are two key cases that shocked the world in their reversed decisions to throw out confessional evidence and to give a new trial. Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966 )In the Miranda v Arizona case the defendant made statements in custodial interrogation that violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights. The defendant wasn't told his rights and
Open Document