Miranda Rights in Our Legal System

Does the Miranda Rights benefit the defendant too much where as the courts throw out voluntary confessions? The Fifth Amendment clearly states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia. (U.S Constitution Fifth Amendment) When arresting citizens, officers must inform the individual of his or her rights or the statement that was said will be disregarded in the court of law. (U.S. Gov Info/Miranda: Right of Silence) These rights are called Miranda rights which protect citizens of the U.S. from self incrimination. (See cases Miranda v Arizona, Dickerson v United States and Escobedo v Illinois) "If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent." (U.S. Gov Info/Miranda: Right of Silence) The dominant key participants would be the prosecution, police officers, and the supreme courts. The challengers would be the defendant, attorney, and the protestors if any.

Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor will try to argue the case before the Supreme Court. Mr. Cassell thinks that the Miranda Requirements needs to be loosen. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) was a case where the courts had to litigate over whether his statements were voluntary and if he waived his Miranda Rights. Mr. Cassell argues h...

... middle of paper ...

...fessions that were made were coerced or voluntary and to set a fair trial for that defendant. It is the right for arresting officers to read the accuser his or her rights because if the courts weren't fair was the purpose of having one. The Miranda Rights does serve a purpose and that's to inform the defendants of his rights before self incrimination therefore; it is up to the defendant to waive their rights. This wouldn't be America if people were guilty before they were proven innocent. . I agree with the courts if the defendant makes a statement before the officer has a chance to read him or her rights that the statement should be used in the court of law. The alternative for an unfair trial could separate Americans for years. We can have two different classes fighting one class to be equal and this could create great ciaos that can destroy our country for years.