preview

Miranda vs. Arizona and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Good Essays
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments like every other law out there is used in ways other than what it was initially for, by being interpreted by stretch provisions according to what feels right. What was it meant for? The brutality to suspects who we're being accused of their so called "wrong doing" dictated what would eventually change the way we work suspects. The police force had not been given what proper provisions to follow when interrogating suspects of criminal charges giving them disadvantages on many occasions though out the course of law. Many suspects essentially didn't know there rights along with police officers which in turn would cause a huge confusion. What are the rights that are supposed to be given to a suspect if they had any? The Fifth Amendment by then had never been truly understood to its full extent which would then be an excuse to brutally interrogate criminals as hostile and inhuman components to get confessions out that may not always seem to be true. Would major trails concerning the peoples Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights lead to a change in the way law enforcement works with suspects?
The Escobedo V. Illinois case had captured the grand stage in 1966 for, a man named Danny Escobedo was denied his rights to obtain a lawyer during questioning by the Chicago Police Department. Escobedo was convicted for shooting and was taken to the police department for questioning. Escobedo had made numerous attempts trying to request a lawyer, but was not provided one violating his Sixth Amendment Rights: “The right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in their defense.” Unfortunately, Escobedo had confessed to the murdering which also violated the Fifth Amendment of “self-incrimination” being forced a confes...

... middle of paper ...

...nforcement. Officers had an upper hand when suspects did not know their rights making it easier for them to sneak tactics through to get confessions. Another reason they it as a disadvantage was because according to the dissent “some cases cannot be solved without confessions”. Also they implied the “welfare” of our society was at stake because it would let criminals run free, if the Miranda rights weren’t stated to them correctly. This was a “hazardous” experiment which could have a dismal outcome and prove to be very ineffective in the future. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion on the way the police officers had treated suspects amendment rights were “exaggerated” and that the outcome was only to favor the accused more favorably.
Our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights have changed since the Miranda v. Arizona case got brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.
Get Access