The Importance Of Miranda Warnings

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

Everyone should read their Miranda rights before they enter the courtroom (thesis statement.)to be proven innocent or guilty.

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

Henry-Mays, P. a. (2007). Farewell, Michael C., Hello Gault: Considering the Miranda Rights of Learning Disabled Children. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 34(2),

In the United States, everyone counts on that justice and liberty is something that we can all have regardless if you are a criminal or not. However, nobody pays attention when they are in school while they are learning about their rights. Then how is someone going to know what they have the right to do while being in an arrested? Miranda v. Arizona was an important case in the U.S. history for a reason. Miranda v. Arizona does guarantee justice and maintains the liberty of everyone.

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

In March of 1963, the Phoenix Police Department brought in an accused to their departments to investigate him. Upon arriving to the police department two detectives interrogated him about the rape of a mildly, handicap young woman and a kidnap. After two hours of interrogating the suspect, Ernesto Miranda, confessed to the crime just after the detectives told him the victim had identified him in a lineup. Ernesto Miranda was found guilty of both crimes and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison. In 1966, three years later, Miranda’s sentence was overturned by the Supreme Court due to the fact that Miranda was not notified about his fifth or sixth amendment. His fifth amendment gave him the right to avoid self-incrimination by

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 Supreme Court ruled a few decades ago that people had to be made aware of their rights. At the time, many individuals under arrest submitted to interrogations without a lawyer because they were unaware of their legal rights. Now, a Miranda warning is required

The point in which Breton should have been given his Miranda Warnings would have been once he was placed in the car on the way to the station. Once Breton was placed in the car he was officially in the custody of the police because he was deprived of his freedom in a substantial way. Brenton was in a custodial situation in which he was not able or free to walk away at this time. The Miranda Warnings are designed to protect citizen from incriminating his or her rights. The courts ruled n the case of Miranda v. Arizona according to Carmem that “We hold that when a individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities and is subject to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized.

“Police, in most jurisdictions, have a special shield against interrogation known as the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights” (Levine,2016). Consequently, the Garrity Rule is set in place to protect police officers accused of violating agency policies while performing their job duties thereof. Nevertheless, this rule is set up to shield police officers in need when they may have done any wrong doing or have been accused of doing so. “Equivalent of Miranda warnings whenever we are dealing with a criminal investigation” (Doerner,2016). Conversely, if enquiring for assumed criminal behavior, the officer has the right to utilize the Miranda rights and refer with his/her attorney. Nevertheless, if the questioning from the supervisor is administrative,

Many have argued that competency to stand trial is the “most significant mental health inquiry pursued in the system of criminal law” (Cowden & Mckee). This pillar of the American Legal System assures that those accused of criminal acts must be sufficiently competent to understand and partake in the trial proceedings. The threshold of competence can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it mainly hinges on a series of factors such as cognitive deficits, the presence of a mental illness, and an inability to comprehend or effectively communicate with legal counsel. While this standard was made legal precedent in the 1960s it was only in regards to the adult criminal system; however, in past decades legal reform has allowed for youths to be tried and subjected to the same punishments as adult defendants (Schwartz & Grisso). This legal development brings about a very imperative issue: Should youth offenders be subjected to the same standard of competence as their adult counterparts? Furthermore, since these statutes were developed for determining competency in adults, can they properly recognize the uniqueness of the youth population?

On March 13 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested on charges of rape and kidnapping of an 18 year old girl. He was interrogated but was never aware that the details of his interrogation would later be used against him in his court trial. Miranda stated that he was never spoken to concerning his right to silence and council as well as the confession being used against him in his trial. He would end up being sentenced to prison, however in June 1965, his attorneys would send the case to the Supreme Court arguing that Miranda had been violated of his right as stated in the 5th and 6th amendments. The case would lead to chief justice Earl Warren to write the first draft of the Miranda rights.

Laws tend to make the lives of every individual safer and pleasant. The subject of this paper focuses on evaluating and identifying the Constitutional safeguards within the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the United States Constitution. How these safeguards to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment will apply to juvenile and adult court proceedings. Finally, this paper will focus the impact that these safeguards, such as speedy trial, Miranda warning, exclusionary rule, and right to counsel will have on the day- to- day operation for juvenile and adult courts.

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