Should Miranda Rights Be Reconsidered?

Miranda rights are part of a routine police procedure in the United States that ensures that suspects in police custody are informed of their rights before questioning. This was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court after, Miranda, a suspect of rape and kidnapping was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment without being informed of his constitutional rights before interrogation. The court ruled that statements made in response to interrogations by a defendant in a police custody will be admissible at trial if only the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult an attorney and the right against self-incrimination.

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

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

Nevertheless, criminal behavior has become a serious threat to many American communities where violence, theft, and illegal drug use are rampant and most americans want to enforce the officials and to be taught on criminal. The united states especially the bill of rights protect individuals from wrong or unjust accusations and punishment by law enforcement officials. My counter claim is that some people say that there should be miranda rights because a person that gets arrested they should have their rights and if you don't give them their rights then they can get release without charges. In my opinion i think their should be miranda rights because i think that a person that gets arrested should go to jail because they broke the law and they should be punish. The background about miranda v. arizona is a man name ernesto went to jail for rape kidnapping and murder and what happen is that ernesto did not know his right and the officer in arizona did not tell him the right ,so what happen is that the man ernesto got released from jail and all the charges drop and he did not had to go to jail and that is why it is important for an officer to say the miranda rights.as you can see my watershed moment is an important to my career because i have to say the right that people have and also it is important for an offer to say, what are you going to jail for and why are you going to

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,

With the warning also being so common in the media, the actual meaning and representation of the warning is mostly lost to many suspects not fully understanding what its full meaning is. They may not be of sound mind or they may even be too emotional to grasp its meaning that it is their rights to use and exercise. Whatever be the case, the individual’s emotional and mental state plays a huge part in how they comprehend what is going on. In most cases, the reading of the warning is crucial to how the suspect interprets it. If the officer states it angrily, the suspect may be too intimidated to understand that they have been told their rights rather than if the officer were to state it calmly and in a mild tone. Most individuals also come from a background where they do not possess enough familiarity with the law or the Constitution to be able to exercise these rights (Galatzer-Levy & Galatzer-Levy, 2012). Shortly after the Miranda decision came into being, its value questioned as to whether it would be of use to everyday law enforcement. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that in his opinion concerning the Miranda case, "cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime." The court’s ruling that all interrogations involve the “application of state power” has had the effect that some police officers will go to drastic measures to obtain the confession that they so desire (Zalman & Smith, 2007). The suspect may also decide to waive their rights. Since there is not a standard rule in place regarding the waiver, some states have decided that the best way they can handle it would be to have the suspect sign a waiver form

The Miranda v. Arizona case shows the people that the Criminal Justice System is not always correct and now how to handle things. Also shows how easy it is for the ones protecting society can make such big mess, which could have, not came upon if just would have done one thing. The Criminal Justice System needs to be more careful on what they do. With the Miranda Right’s set in place should help the police and the

The United States of America prides itself on being a nation in which the people’s rights are put first and foremost. We can speak how we like and do almost anything we want, which are luxuries that people in many other countries are not given. Our Miranda Rights are an example of a guarantee that the American people are given that, at first, was not widespread throughout the world. It was Miranda vs. Arizona that established this vital warning that would enforce the constitutional rights of not only criminals, but of all citizens, and ensure that no American would be incriminated against without knowing their rights.

Even though Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to prison and spent 11years in the correctional system, his case became famous and obtained historical significance. Specifically, the society was alarmed by the increasing police powers and negligence on the duty, which may lead to self-incrimination (Zalman, 2010). Given that Miranda was not aware of his Fifth Amendment right and was not given any warning, the police certainly violated the law; therefore, the prosecution could not have utilized Miranda’s confession as the evidence in a criminal trial. This fact was later used in the newspapers and other media to create a controversy. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights gained significant attention in public because they provided suspected persons

The following process has made it much more difficult for authorities to get a confession out of suspects. Many people are now aware of their rights and process the police must take causing now than ever more people to refuse to cooperate with the police making it more difficult for prosecutors to win a case and convict the suspect. With the difficulty that Miranda has imposed on police have been forced to come up with alternative methods around Miranda without violating it. Such

Between February and March of 1966 the Supreme Court case, Miranda vs. Arizona took place (Worrall, 2015). In this case, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona because he was accused of raping a woman. Miranda was interrogated by officers for two hours before confessing both written and orally. He was charged with kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. While this case is the main thing upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling, there were three other cases backing their decision – Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Based on these three cases, the Supreme Court upheld that before any questioning a suspect must be aware that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation (Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v Arizona). This ruling has been implied in all criminal cases since and anytime these rights are not read to a suspect they are acquitted. Miranda vs. Arizona has been the face of a very big change in the way the criminal justice system is run and will continue to be for many years to come.

After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda, there were several changes made to the detaining and arresting processes for law enforcement in the United States. The laws were then changed to require all law enforcement to read what would go on to be titled a citizen’s “Miranda Warning” which explained, the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer or public defendant, and that anything they say will be used against them. All of these

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.

On March 1963 a 22-year-old man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Az for kidnapping and raping an eighteen year old girl. At anytime from being interrogated was Miranda read his rights, and he confessed his crime. In the event that he had signed a confession paper that claimed that Miranda had been read his rights which was not true. The 5th amendment states, “... to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case”(Wikipedia). This illustrates how we the people are protected by the constitution, and have the right to not speak until an attorney is present. The Miranda v Arizona definitely ensures justice

Miranda also protects suspects from fanatical law enforcement officials. Although most law-enforcement officials are nice men and women, some conduct ill-usage of their power. They may try to pressure suspects