Why Is Miranda Rights Important

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 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.

The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 affected the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of law enforcement. Miranda v. Arizona is known as the “right to remain silent” case. “I must tell you first you have the right to remain silent. If you choose not to remain silent, anything you say or write can and will be used as evidence against you in court. You have the right to consult a lawyer before any questioning, and you have the right to have the lawyer present with you during any questioning. You not only have the right to consult with a lawyer before any questioning, but if you lack the financial ability to retain a lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, and to be present with you

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.

Imagine a man sitting in a strange room, afraid of the people there with him – they are people that could ruin his life forever if he says the wrong thing. He is panicking and he feels like everything in the world is working against him to get him in trouble. He is in a police station with officers questioning him intensely and he does not know how seriously they will take what he says. What if he misspeaks? What if he accidentally says something he does not mean in the context the police will use? These are fears that go through the minds of people taken into custody and accused of committing crimes. Ernesto Miranda was in a similar situation when he was being questioned based on circumstantial evidence linking him to a kidnapping and rape.

Miranda vs. Arizona began with Ernesto Miranda, who had been charged with many serious crimes such as rape, kidnapping,

Basically, the Miranda rights are designed to let you know that you do not have to make any statements that could incriminate you. Unfortunately for suspects, it does not apply to evidence that the police have collected. If the police smell alcohol on your breath or conduct a field sobriety test, these pieces of evidence can be used against you in the courtroom. Your Miranda rights are only designed to protect you from making statements that could be used against you in the courtroom. They will not protect you from any other evidence that the police may collect.

The Miranda v. Arizona case holds that a person in police custody cannot be questioned without being told that he or she has the right to remain silent, he or she has the right to a lawyer (at government expense if the person can’t pay for it, and lastly that anything the person says after knowing of these rights can be used as evidence of guilt at trial. This case makes sure that a person in custody will not give up without knowing the Fifth amendment, which gives the criminal the right to refuse to be a witness against themself and the sixth amendment, which gives the criminal a right to a lawyer. Without these two fundamental rights, the court will rule the case “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be used for the product of their free choice.”

The Miranda warnings are to be read to all suspect in custody who are interrogated (Hall, 2015). Officer Norman violated the suspect Fifth Amendment rights when failing to Mirandized him after continuing to question his motives pertaining to the crime. The United States Supreme Court decided in 1966, that the historic case of Miranda versus Arizona acknowledged that whenever a suspect is detained in police custody, before being interrogated, he or she must be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights (Hall, 2015). As a result, this right gives the suspect the freedom from making any self-incriminating statements by informing them they have the right to remain silent. In this scenario, the Miranda warning should have been given when the suspect

If a officers question a suspect without first giving the Miranda rights, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary, and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. In other words it can't be used against you in any way.Any evidence gotten as a result of the confession will most likely be thrown out of the case. And will never be used against you. This is good because it preserves you liberty. So if they don't say the Miranda rights to you then they can't use the evidence they gathered against you. This ensures justice to the person in custody .

Ernesto Miranda was a man who was crimes of kidnapping and raping of a 18 year old woman, when he was arrested he was not told his rights to be quiet when questioned or have a lawyer, so he told them he did it and signed a confession. When in court Miranda's lawyer was justly angered by the untold rights. He argued that the confession is fake because he was not told he could be quiet, so he persuaded the jury to release him. In order to make sure that this never happens again, the government made and enforced the Miranda rights, stating that police officers have to read a criminal their rights during the arrest. Miranda was retried, and was found guilty after Miranda's roommate testified him talking about

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.

The” Miranda” rights that police are required to give persons they are about to arrest did not become law until March 2, 1966. It started when an eighteen year old women told the police she was abduct, taken to the desert and rape. The police arrested and questioned Ernesto Miranda. In 1966, the case of Miranda vs .Arizona went to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that police must advise you of your rights when they make an arrest. The Court said that when a person is arrested he/she must be told what their rights are: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law and that you have right to an attorney. The court also said that if you cannot afford attorney, one will be appoint to you at the expense of the citizens of the United States. If police do not tell repeat the Miranda Rights to you anything that tell them cannot be used in court against you.

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

When you are arrested, if you aren’t given you Miranda Rights, then questioning after an arrest, can be inadmissible at trial (“Advisement of Rights”, np). That is part of what Due Process is. Due Process is the right that you have to be given all of your rights and the court has to execute all of your rights before you can be punished. Another right is no cruel or unusual