Miranda Rights In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case. Miranda came about in 1966, when a 23-year-old, name Miranda, was arrested and transported from his home to the police station for questioning in connections with a kidnapping and a rape case. Miranda was kind of poor and uneducated. At the station the police questioned him for two hours. After this two hours of questioning the police obtained a written confession that in turn was used in court against him. Miranda was undoubtedly found guilty. Miranda v Arizona went all the way to the Supreme Court. There the Supreme Court ruled that the police do have a responsibility to inform a subject of an interrogation of their constitutional rights. The constitutional rights have to do with self-incrimination, and the right to counsel before, during and after questioning. What does this mean to you? Well if you are ever arrested for being suspected of a crime, the police are legally obligated to advise you of your Miranda rights. If they do not do this and they start to ask you questions, and interrogate you, then anything you say cannot be used against you in court, and you could have the charges dropped. The police are not supposed to question you at all unless you have been read your Miranda rights and you then waive those rights. You can waive your rights either verbally tell the officer you waive your rights, or by signing a rights waiver form. The actual Miranda warning is very short and covers all of person’s rights. The actual Miranda warning is as follows: 1. You have the right to remain silent. 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 3. You have the right to an attorney and have him present with you while you are being questioned. 4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish. 5. You can decide a... ... middle of paper ... ...mation they have given is admissible in court. A defendant that speaks any language has the right afforded to them under the constitution to have their rights, and making sure they understand them is a very important point in the investigation. Understand this though; the last section of the Miranda rights is not a formal part. An interrogator does not have to read this part, but it is highly protected to conserve the sustance of the case. 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. 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. Works Cited: Lyman, D. Michael; Criminal Investigation, The Art and Science; 3rd edition, 2002 Prentice Hall. Pgs. 188-200.
“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
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.
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.
...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.
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”
Friedman, S. (2014, March 10). You have the right to ... not much: Why are there no 'Miranda rights'
“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.
Leo, R. A., & Thomas, G. C. (1998). The Miranda Debate: Law, Justice, and Policing. In R. A. Leo, & G. C. Thomas, The Miranda Debate: Law, Justice, and Policing (p. 343). Boston, Massachusetts: Northeastern University Press.
The author NOLO (2018) delineates the consequences of law enforcement officers failing to read a suspect their Miranda warning. First, if an officer fails to read a suspect their Miranda warning their statements could be deemed inadmissible in court. A Strong emphasis is placed on the term could because there are exceptions to the Miranda rule. The author Hall (2015) promulgates that the Miranda rule can be excluded when suspects volunteer information. Second, the Miranda warning rules exception comes into play when officers ask a question for the sole purpose information and could not lead to incriminating statements. Thirdly, the Miranda rule is excluded when officers ask a question that is a direct relation to preserve public safety.
In 1966, the U.S. Supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona ruled that those arrested for a crime must be issued certain rights by the police. The requirement given by a Miranda warning fulfill a citizen's rights and prevents manipulation by police. Miranda rights, however, contain massive loopholes that can be used to the prisoner's advantage and allow dangerous men or women to go free. Miranda rights, in sum, are necessary in protecting the rights of the people, but are not immune to the legal gaps they contain.
This source explains the rights that should be told to a suspect that is arrested, the fifth and Sixth Amendments. It also explains how Miranda was identified as the criminal and what happened in the interrogation room. This source helped me understand the specific amendments that apply to Miranda Rights.
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.
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.
The results of this case led to the creation of the “Miranda rights”, which were to address the “widespread ignorance of the law”. The phrase “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…” has been a series of phrases that the American people have grown used to (“What are Your Miranda Rights?”). I grew up hearing it in dramatized police and criminal TV shows, however I never knew why it existed. Therefore, I chose to research this case. I had not even heard of Miranda v. Arizona prior to taking US Government so, it was good being able to explore some of the practices that I had no idea had so must story behind it. This case in particular made me realize that all though Miranda walked away free from this due to a technicality, it helped in creating a change so that this type of confusion would not happen
This means that if you do not act a certain way a White person does, you do not fit in the societal norms. On the other hand, some people believe in reverse racism, acting racist towards the dominant group. An example of a saying is, “People of Color are just as racist as we are. In fact, now there is reverse racism and White people can’t get into college or good grades” (126). This perspective shows that the person of color is the blame for why white people can not get into college because diversity is needed. However, a person of color does not get into college or good grades because of their color, but because of their determination and persistence to do well in school. Reverse racism is not true because there is no institutional power within it. White supremacy is evident because of the way society portrays a White person in comparison to a Black person. An example is the Eric Garner case. Eric Garner, an African American man, was selling illegal cigarettes in the streets of New York when Officer Daniel Pantaleo put him in a chokehold while Garner desperately screamed “I can’t breathe” eleven times. Officer Daniel Pantaleo did not face any charges from killing a human being because he is white. This shows the corrupt society we live in because of a human being’s color, they are granted a higher privilege. If a Black man killed a White man for the same