The Duty Of Law Enforcement

First evolving from the fathering of the earliest form of the English law enforcement practices, the fifth amendment brought a verity of protection to every citizen of the united states. An important exception was added in the mid to late 80’s with the Miranda court case, when the U.S. Supreme Court found it that if public safety is at immediate risk, a suspect's statements are admissible in court, even if his or her Miranda rights have not been explained. (Erastus-Obilo, Bethel. Everything You Need to Know About Miranda Rights and Warning. Newmarket, Ont., BrainMass, 2012.) Before one can discuss the fifth amendment in further depth one must

The Miranda rights are the rights a law enforcement will have to advise an individual once the police officer arrests that particular person. It is actually the indication that officers of the law provide suspects to ensure that they are aware of their rights before they are interrogated. It was in fact a law created after the investigations of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. The case was comparable because it was a 5-4 conclusion. The court determined that any form of evidence, may it be incriminating as well as evidence of innocence, should be considered to be proof in a case; but could only be considered whenever the police let the suspect understand that they have the right to legal representation before and also throughout questioning and that the suspect may be quiet to prevent self-incrimination before an interrogation. This can be a staple whenever police arrests are done. I am going to specify the reason why I think that the Miranda Rights are not needed any longer.

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

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

There is a significant health issue facing the public as well as law enforcement every day, suicide. The numbers surrounding suicide are shocking effects people of all backgrounds. In the year 2010 more than 38,000 adults committed suicide. Then in 2011 around 1 million adults admitted to attempting suicide, while 8 million had serious suicidal thoughts. Law Enforcement officers are at an even higher risk then most due to experiencing such a large number of risk factors. These factors include but are not limited to poor physical health, access to fire arms, domestic abuse, substance abuse, exposure to violence and suicide; depression, anxiety and other mental diseases. These factors lead to an above average number of officer suicides every

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

Means---A person in police custody may refuse to answer any questions relating to the crime that he is suspected of committing. The Supreme Court has ruled that this applies to not only the trial but also, police interrogations. Moreover, if the police want to question a suspect, they must first give him Miranda warnings. Is it genuine that to capture you, a cop needs to let you know the Miranda rights and inquire as to whether you get it? Imagine a scenario in which somebody continues saying they don't get it. As indicated by me-No. This is something individuals got from TV. Cops don't have to peruse you your rights unless you are in authority and they are addressing you. On the off chance that they are not addressing you, they don't have to reveal to you anything. On the off

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.

Miranda warnings were first invoked by the U.S. Supreme Court, to protect the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights for its citizens, during criminal proceedings. The Miranda case itself involved a Phoenix Arizona man, who was taken into police custody, and transported to a police station and interrogated for over two hours. This interrogation produced a signed confession to kidnapping and rape, which ultimately ended up in a 20-30 year prison sentence. The decision was upheld by the State Supreme Court on appeal, but later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, by the police not advising the suspect of his rights not to incriminate himself, and his right to counsel.

As a result of the Miranda case the police must give warnings to all suspects when they have to answer questions related to a criminal case. The Miranda warnings are based on the Fifth Amendment right to be protected from self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment that gives all suspects the right to have an attorney. The Miranda Warnings consist of telling suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to have an attorney present before and during questioning, and if they can’t afford an attorney one will be provided for them.

A lot of police officers note that the Miranda Warning is crucial to not only citizen’s, but to law enforcement agents as well. They force police officers to gather other scientific, and forensic evidence to support their case, rather than just the words from the suspect. A Chicago study found that only four out of ten-thousand cases have suppressed motions due to a problem with the Miranda Warning. In fact, Lieutenant James Blanchette of the Hartford Police Department said the majority of suspects waive their rights (Blanchette 2006). If this is the case, then it can be argued that the Miranda Warning does not negatively affect cases at all. In the landmark case of, Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects that are detained, cannot be questioned by the police, until they are read their Miranda rights. Ernesto Miranda was charged with kidnapping, robbery, and rape. He was interrogated for two hours, and then confessed to his crimes. There was no lawyer present, and Miranda was mentally unstable. There was no other evidence against Miranda besides his confession. He was sentenced to prison, but immediately appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. That didn’t work, so he appealed to the U.S Supreme Court, which accepted. The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s confession cannot be used because the police officers failed to read Mr. Miranda his rights. This case alone proved the power of knowing your rights. And now the way law enforcement agents conduct their day to day jobs is changed. If Miranda had his rights read out to him, and the cops respected those rights the cops would’ve had to get actual evidence against Miranda. This infringement of Miranda’s rights proves that no matter the case, everyone should know their rights when arrested.

With such practices agencies protect not only the victims rights but also evidence that is later used in cases. This stratifies Miranda Rights actives that have “grave concern for the effect… that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself” (Linkins, 2007). This practice also satisfies the State, who has interest in protecting clear evidence of proper due process procedures and statements given.

Miranda Rights

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

The Miranda choice expressly expresses that officers are under no obligation to intrude on a volunteered admission keeping in mind the end goal to pursue a questioner his or her Miranda rights. “The Fifth Amendment is the right to a grand jury for a crime, protection against double jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination, life, liberty, and property without due process of law.” (Law, Public Safety, Corrections & Safety, 2011). Routine questions are informational, and typically do not lead to incriminating responses, should not be preceded by a reading of the Miranda warnings. Furthermore, questions from the law enforcement officers concern of public safety should not be preceded by a Miranda warning. “The Miranda rules are casual