The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona

1498 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: fifth amendent: miranda V ARIZONA

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were incorrect and in other cases involving due process this amendment was abused. In similar cases the court ruled in favor of the defendant because he was harmed during the interrogation process. The court argued that the case was not about whether Miranda was guilty of the charges or not (he obviously confessed). Rather they argued that the case was about the way in which the interrogation was derived. The court’s ruling was meant to deal with the mistreatment of suspects by policemen during interrogation. Policemen are notorious for mistreating interrogents (alovardohistory). Prior to this case a possible witness was beaten, kicked, and was burned on the back with lighted cigarette butts just in order to extract a testimony. The Supreme Court determined that the accused must be read the following rights: “You have the right to remain silent. Any... ... middle of paper ... ... right to remain silent.” Works Cited "Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court." Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/469/Key_Excerpts_from_the_Dissenting_Opinion "Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court: A Guide to the Major Decisions on ..." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. Warren, Chief Justice Earl. "Miranda v. Arizona." (1966). http://www.alvaradohistory.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/2mirandavarizona.1134136.pdf "Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court: A Guide to the Major Decisions on ..." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. http://books.google.com/books?id=LzrlcPVUX2EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Criminal+Procedure+and+the+Supreme+Court&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qzAZU86EFYWCyQHUt4CwCA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Criminal%20Procedure%20and%20the%20Supreme%20Court&f=false

Show More
Related

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Some people might even argue that the Miranda’s laws might actually be harmful to law enforcement. Because the Miranda rules specify that a suspect must be read their Miranda Rights and has a right to waive those rights. If the suspect declines, the police are required by law to stop all questioning. Even if a suspect initially waives his rights, during an interrogation he can halt the process at any time by asking for a lawyer or taking back the waiver. The police, from that moment on, are not allowed to suggest that he or she reconsider (ncpa.org). Because of this, many people feel that this has had a harmful affect on law enforcement. Police have found that is much more difficult to get a confession. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), the fraction of suspects questioned who confessed dropped from 49% to 14% in New York and from 48% to 29% in Pittsburg. With fewer confessions, police also found that it is much more difficult to solve crimes. For example, following the Court decision, the rates of violent crime cases solved fell drastically from 60% (or higher) to approximately 45%. This level has remained constant over the years. Also, due to fewer confessions and fewer crimes that are solved, this means there are fewer convictions. According to the NCPA, there are 3.85 fewer convictions every year because of Miranda. 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 which are 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 dictate the need

    Read More

  • Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1)

    2066 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

    Read More

  • Case Brief

    1190 Words  | 3 Pages

    Schmalleleger, F. (2002). Criminal Law Today: An Introduction with capstone cases. (2nd edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Case: Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District

    550 Words  | 2 Pages

    "Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda V. Arizona

    574 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda Rights became a United States Supreme Court decision in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona), in which the high court made a decision in favor of and upheld that the Fifth Amendment rights of Miranda were violated. The Miranda ruling gives suspects the right to remain silent and not speak to any law enforcement as a means to prevent self incrimination, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, if an attorney is requested and the defendant can’t afford one, there are provisions in Miranda for an attorney to be appointed to defend the individual.

    Read More

  • Essay On Des Moines Independent Community Schools

    579 Words  | 2 Pages

    Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Plea Bargaining

    874 Words  | 2 Pages

    Siegel, L., & Worrall, J. (2017). Pretrial and Trial Procedures. In Introduction to Criminal Justice (15th ed., pp. 389-395). Wadsworth Pub

    Read More

  • Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education

    2021 Words  | 5 Pages

    Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 18, 2013, from Legal Information Institute : http://www.law.cornell.edu/suspct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0476_0267_ZO.html

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Speech On Miranda Rights

    691 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody for robbery, kidnapping, and rape. After two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed to his crimes. Being uneducated in the matter, Miranda did not know that the Fifth Amendment gives everyone the right to remain silent and not talk about anything that might convict him, or her. Miranda also didn't understand the Sixth Amendment, which provides everyone the right to have an attorney when the police are asking questions about a crime. The United States Supreme Court found that, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), because the police had not told Miranda about these constitutional rights, the confession to the crimes could not be used as evidence against Miranda at trial. To avoid an unfortunate rerun of these events, police officers now tell the person in question their ‘Miranda Rights’ before he, or she, is taken into

    Read More

  • Miranda v. Arizona

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda argued that his rights were violated because he admitted to the crime without knowing his rights, which should have been said to him when he was arrested. He claimed that the police had obtained his confession unconstitutionally. (Gitlin) He also mentioned that the police admitted to not telling him his rights. He reminded the Supreme Court that the...

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected.

    Read More

  • Why Affirmative Action Should Be Eliminated

    1239 Words  | 3 Pages

    United States of America. U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 1 Apr. 2003. 13 Nov. 2013

    Read More

  • State Court Case: The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    1271 Words  | 3 Pages

    It was later decided that even though Lujan’s Miranda rights were violated, it was a harmless error due to the fact that he confessed in court to the murders. “However, the state court reached this decision by failing to apply the Supreme Court 's holding in Harrison v. United States” (McMahon, 2013). The case finally ended when the Ninth Circuit applied what was taken from Douglas v. Jacquez and modified the conviction. “The district court may provide the state court with the option to modify the conviction, but the district court erred in concluding second-degree murder was the appropriate modification” (McMahon, 2013). The case of Lujan v. Garcia was one where a man’s Miranda rights were violated due to an inadequate reading of the warnings which changed the outcome of the case. In conclusion, Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) case is a prominent case in history that resulted in rights that are still used today. The Miranda rights are a part of the core of the current United States criminal justice system. They have a huge influence on the way police officers and other law enforcement workers operate with regards to custodies and interrogations. Despite the Miranda rights being so important, there are still times in which someone’s Miranda rights can be violated such as during the Lujan v. Garcia case. A violation of the Miranda rights can change the outcome of a court case. The rights given during the Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) as a result of the case are what has had a great influence on the criminal justice system

    Read More

More about The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona

Open Document