Miranda rights are one example of how the courts have impacted public policy within the criminal justice system when it comes to a person accused of a crime. Chief Justice Earl Warren decided the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The case was expanded to the rights of the accused individuals accused of committing a crime. The decision required law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their right to remain silent, that anything could be used against them in a court of law, and the right to have a lawyer representing them. Also included was any evidence in the case, if the accused did not clearly understand their rights, is not legally admissible in a court proceeding. Prior to the Miranda right, it was not uncommon for law enforcement officers to obtain confessions by physical or psychological abuse or even misrepresenting them or lying about the …show more content…
The Eighth Amendment protects citizens against cruel and unusual punishment. In the 1972 Furman v. Georgia case the Court banned the use of capital punishment as it was practiced due to the indiscriminate way is which it was used. The Courts were in agreement that there were too many complications in resolving guilt and innocence while deciding on the life imprisonment or death punishment. All the justices could not completely agree on whether the idea of that capital punishment that was cruel and unusual. However, the justices did propose new statues that could be created to follow the standard of not being arbitrary. One example the justices approved was the specific mitigating and aggravating circumstances that could be used as guidelines that Courts could use when applying the death penalty in particular cases. Consequently, in the Furman case the Courts successfully struck down all the nation’s death penalty laws on the foundation of the arbitrary and prejudiced manner in which capital punishment was
Ernesto Miranda was born March 19, 1941 and died January 31st, 1976. He committed his first serious crime in eighth grade, and was convicted of felony burglary. He was sentenced to one year in reform school, in his case, Arizona State Industrial School for Boys. After being released from a separate sentence from the reform school, Miranda moved to Los Angeles. While in L.A. Ernesto was arrested for lack of supervision, violating curfew and being a “peeping tom”. He was in custody for forty-five days in the county detention home. Miranda enlisted in the United States Army at the age of approximately 19 on September 03, 1946. Ernesto was a private in the Philippine Scouts branch of the Philippine Scouts during World War II.
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.
If a seventh grade boy is interrogated by a police officer, he has the pressure to tell the truth; however if an adult was to be interrogated they would know that they have the right to remain silent. This correlates with the Miranda v. Arizona case, stating that you have the right to remain silent, and after you are told these rights anything you say can be used against you in the court of law. And because children are psychologically and socially different from adults this raises the question- if the age of a child subjected to police questioning is also relevant when determining police custody for Miranda purposes? There is no strict or absolute way in interrogating a child after a crime has been committed; nonetheless it is settled by
Society experience arbitrariness in different ways and aspects of life; since childhood, our upbringing is full of arbitrariness, at home, we experience arbitrariness from our parents or guardians, when grown up, we perceive arbitrariness in our employment environment, and even at sports events; but in criminology when arbitrariness occurs, we recognize that our criminal justice system is shattered and that each person or party that partakes on such process contributes a level of arbitrariness that is unconscionable. Since our culture has experienced arbitrariness in all aspects of life, arbitrariness goes unnoticed most of the time, our society has grown so accustom to it that it will not try to avoid it. However, when it comes to person
The “cruel and unusual” clause in the eighth amendment states that “cruel and unusual punishment” such as torture or lingering death can not be inflicted on anyone as a form of execution. It is however permissible under the 8th Amendment to execute a convict by means of hanging, shooting, electrocution, and lethal gas.
Many call capital punishment unconstitutional and point to the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for support. The amendment states that, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment be inflicted." Those who oppose the death penalty target the 'cruel and unusual' phrase as an explanation of why it is unconstitutional. Since the Framers of the Constitution are no longer with us and we base our nation on the words in which that document contains, the legality of the death penalty is subject to interpretation. Since there is some ambiguity or lack of preciseness in the Constitution, heated debate surrounding this issue has risen in the last ten years.
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
... rape or treason was committed ("8th Amendment to the Constitution – U.S. Amendment VIII Summary"). However, there are some cases where the death penalty is unacceptable regardless of the crime. In the Supreme Court case of Roper v Simmons the court decided that the execution of someone for a crime they committed when they were a minor violated the eighth amendment . The court case of Atkins v Virginia established that the death penalty is not an acceptable punishment for mentally ill felons (Lemieux, "The Supreme Court's Empty Eighth Amendment Promise"). The Supreme Court has also ruled that executing anyone under the age of 18 is an act of cruel and unusual punishment ("8th Amendment to the Constitution – U.S. Amendment VIII Summary"). The death penalty is the worst punishment a person could get, and because of that there are many restrictions on when to use it.
During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes. ”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment.