The Pros And Cons Of The Miranda Warning

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.

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.

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 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.

Another benefit that Miranda warnings provide to law enforcement is due to that public confidence mentioned above, detectives who are in charge of interrogating a suspect can use Miranda in their tactics. Detectives begin by cultivating the suspect, getting him to make eye contact and engage in conversation. This along with the

Throughout the interrogation, the police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney (“Miranda v. Arizona Podcast”). Miranda was question for two hours without a lawyer. Miranda eventually gave the police details of the crime that closely matched the victims story. He agreed to write his confession in a written statement which he wrote out under the words, “this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me” (“Miranda Rights”). His confession was used as evidence when he was tried and convicted for the crime by the court.

Whenever a crime takes place, the police arrive at the scene and must tell the one they arrested the Miranda rights. In world book online: Stanley L. Kutler, Ph.D notes, “Miranda V. Arizona was a case in which the supreme court in the United States limited the power of police to question suspects.” Miranda was a criminal who kidnapped and raped several women. He was not able to understand English very well, for Spanish was his language. When he was arrested, he was interrogated for about two hours. He was not given his rights in Spanish, therefore he did understand what they had told him. This means he was not given his right to an attorney or to remain silent. He then confessed orally and in written form. He then took it to the supreme court.

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

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.

I think that the Miranda rights ensure justice and preserve our liberty. With out the Miranda rights read to us how would we know what kind of rights we have. The whole point of the Miranda rights are so that the civilian will understand his rights, and to ensure justice and preserve his liberty. Police officers are required to say the Miranda rights to protect the individual who is in custody and in questioning. It tell the individual about violation of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination.

“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”, (US Constitution amend. V). Whether law enforcement should be required to give the Miranda warning upon requesting to search an individual without prior reasoning has caused much controversy in the past. One might think that a topic as simple as this one would have a simple solution; law enforcement should be required to give a warning similar to the Miranda warning upon request to search an individual, or an individual’s property, without prior reasoning or warrant.

As a result of the 1966 Miranda case the Supreme Court ruling has now obligated all law enforcement officials in my opinion to inform individuals of their rights that afforded to them the right to council. If once cannot afford council, then one must be appointed. These rights come straight from the Supreme Court rulings. All suspects must be read their Miranda rights once they have been retained for questioning. These famous cases begin with the Miranda v. Arizona following three other cases. All four cases were involving interrogations while in custody. All four cases the defendants were questioned by the police without their rights to councilor the prosecuting attorney being present and not one of their own. At no time was the defendant

The Court ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that interrogations are in inherently stressful and pressure the defendant to cooperate based on a lack of knowledge regarding their specific rights during questioning. Because of this finding they concluded officers have a duty to advise the defendant of their rights through the Miranda warning. The requirement is only required when the suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation [7].” The Court focused on the two conditions triggering the need for the Miranda warning because of the impermissibly high risk of coerced confessions [13]. The very nature of in which defendants are questioned alone by law enforcement officers trained in using tactics to “persuade, trick, or cajole

If an officer fails to read the defendant his or her rights before obtaining a confession, then the confession could be inadmissible based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession. For instance, if Miranda were applicable to the situation then the confession would be inadmissible if the defendant’s rights were not read. Subsequently, the defendant’s Miranda warnings must be issued when they are taken into custody, the defendant’s statements are the result of an interrogation, and there is a law enforcement officer present (Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Academy, 2015). Additionally, interrogations include words or actions by law enforcement officers that can reasonably be expected to induce incriminating

1.The Miranda decision is in order to protect citizens from self-incrimination. It gives citizens the right to remain silent in situations when they are being questioned by Law Enforcement Officers. They Also have the right to an Attorney when they are being questioned.