The Difference between the Miranda Rights and the Charter of Rights

903 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: essays on the us supreme court ruling of miranda vs arizona

As Canadians, a portion of our rights that are read to us upon arrest are as follows: "It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel in private without delay, You may call any lawyer you want.....You have the right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel. I am not obligated to take a statement from you or ask you to participate in any process which could provide incriminating evidence until you are certain about whether you want to exercise this right (Griffiths, 2011) It seems pretty straight forward. We get arrested and we are told we can get a lawyer. Although you may not have been through the process, you have probably seen what happens next on the latest episode of law and order or NYPD Blue. You get taken into a tiny room to be questioned by an investigator or two, and your lawyer sits next to you and continually tells the investigators that you have nothing to say (Friedman, 2014). "You have the right to ... not much: Why are there no 'Miranda rights' in our country ?", is an article by Solomon Friedman that explains this is not the case in Canada, and asks the question, Why not? Missing from this article is an explanation of what Miranda rights are, and how are they different from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Miranda rights, also known as the Miranda warning, is a warning given by police in the United States to suspects in custody before they are interrogated. The name 'Miranda rights' comes from the case Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court held that the admission of incriminating statements by a suspect who has not been read their rights, violates one's right to council. Therefore if a police officer does not inform a suspect of their Mi... ... middle of paper ... ...ul Convictions. Criminal Law Forum, 20(2/3), 173-192. Crime in the United States. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ Friedman, S. (2014, March 10). You have the right to ... not much: Why are there no 'Miranda rights' in our country ?. The Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/ Griffiths, C. (2011). Canadian criminal Justice: A Primer. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education. Miranda Warning. (2014, March 30). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Canada Statistics Canada. (2013, July 24). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ Ward, J. (2010, October 8). No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court. The Canadian Press. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/ Warder, R. (2013, May 22). 10 controversial convictions based on false confessions. Listverse. Retrieved from http://listverse.com/

Show More
Related

  • Argumentative Essay On Miranda Rights

    1001 Words  | 3 Pages

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (The Consitution of the United States, Article I) In conclusion,this can prove why miranda rights are important to american society with three reasons that are due process, provide a free attorney,and cops warning to citizens.Miranda rights are a prerequisite piece of information for citizens and police,citizens need to remember their miranda

    Read More

  • Search And Seizure In Canada Case Study

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can no t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest and subsequent questioning and investigation may continue. These are liberties that were afforded to suspected criminals in the Miranda Vs Arizona. However, with every rule there also exceptions like: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, and Berghuis v. Thompkins.

    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

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • The Case Of Mapp V. Ohio

    928 Words  | 2 Pages

    Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona have great impacts on the United States criminal justice system. The decision of Mapp v. Ohio ultimately aids in the strengthening of the Fourth Amendment with the extension of the exclusionary rule. Until this ruling, states did not have to obey this rule and could get away with warrantless searches. With this order, the privacy of United States citizens is safeguarded. Moreover, the Supreme Court created the “Miranda rights” as a result of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights establish that upon a person 's arrest, the police is mandated to inform that individual of his basic rights, which include “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed” (9). Essentially, people are given the right to not make any “self-incriminating statements”

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights Must be Read

    543 Words  | 2 Pages

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed to you” This may be differ from state to state as long as the concept is conveyed they was read their rights. Miranda Rights is mandatory across the United States due to the Miranda v. Arizona. In the following will explain what the 3 branches Judicial, Executive, and the Legislative have done to enforce this law or to change it, as well as the effect on the people.

    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

  • Persuasive Essay On Miranda Rights

    514 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Miranda rights ensure a fair trial for everyone. The rights ensure that the accused has fair representation. Everyone wherathe suspected of a crime or not should be entitled to a fair trial. Police should be required to say this, so that people who don’t know their rights can be protected by the constitution. If people didn’t have the rights this would lead to an unfair trial that will be up to the government who wins. These rights make sure that the government doesn’t control the people. The United States of America stands for freedom and equality. The Miranda rights protect the freedoms of the

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona

    543 Words  | 2 Pages

    we must first fully understand what rights citizens welcome Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. What are the "Miranda" rights?

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights

    1348 Words  | 3 Pages

    I hope in this paper I have made people more aware of what exactly are the Miranda rights. It is very crucial to understand these incase you are involved in an interrogation sometime in ones life. You have the rights afforded to you under the constitution, and it is important you exercise those rights.

    Read More

  • Miranda v. Arizona

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1966, American police procedure was changed by what is known today as the Miranda Rights. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a twenty three year old Hispanic American with an eighth grade education was arrested for kidnap and rape. (Paddock) He was identified by the victim of the crime in a police lineup. After he was identified, he was taken into police interrogation for two hours. When he was arrested, he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. He was also not informed of his Sixth Amendment right to have the assistance of an attorney. In the first part of his interrogation, Miranda denied having any involvement in the crime, but after two hours he confessed to the crime in writing. (Street Law)

    Read More

  • Teen Drinking and Driving

    1742 Words  | 4 Pages

    Through the entire process citizens are entitled to basic Miranda Rights. Citizens have the right to an attorney when they are stopped for a DUI investigation. It says “Most people don’t realize that they have the option, that they have the right. They also tend to disregard that, despite being told by the officer when they read Miranda rights, that they a right to remain silent. Anything they can say will be used against them in a court of law” (Law office of Brian Douglas Sloan).

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.

    Read More

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

    1271 Words  | 3 Pages

    The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court case to a code used by law enforcement during custodies and investigations.

    Read More

More about The Difference between the Miranda Rights and the Charter of Rights

Open Document