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

  • Wrongful Conviction - A Miscarriage In The Canadian Justice System

    1655 Words  | 4 Pages

    King, Jack. "The Ordeal of Guy Paul Morin: Canada Copes With Systemic Injustice." National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) . N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2010. .

    Read More

  • Comparison of US Bill of Rights and The Canadian Charter of Rights

    1400 Words  | 3 Pages

    McKercher, William R., ed. The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights

    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

  • False Confessions and the Norfolk Four Case

    2738 Words  | 6 Pages

    ``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.

    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

  • Pros And Cons Of Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

    541 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the strong foundation for the diverse country of Canada. They uphold various beliefs and values Canadians may have. Under the constitution in 1982, the CRF (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was entrenched by then Prime Minister Trudeau. The CRF has 4 rights; Equality, legal, democratic and mobility, there is also 4 freedoms; of Conscience and Religion, of thought, belief, expression and media, of peaceful assembly, and Association. If people feel that their right and/or freedom has been violated, they can go to court by using a “Charter Challenge. ” A charter challenge is when something inequitable or unfair has been done, the citizen can pursue the court case stating that something violated their rights and/or freedoms. All the rights and freedoms help

    Read More

  • Section 7 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    1891 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rodriguez V. Attorney General Of Canada." Issues In Law & Medicine 9.4 (1994): 389. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.

    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

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    If the suspect refuses his right to an attorney, they may begin questioning him. If he/she decides invoke their right to remain silent, the police may not question the suspect, however they may at a later time attempt to question him again.

    Read More

  • Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...

    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

  • Fifth Amendment Essay

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ained in their questioning. Officers commonly have small cards with the Miranda warnings on them so they don’t forget or skip over a part of ones right, if this does occur evidence still cannot be properly obtained because the person was not fully warned of all their rights. Currently, the only unwarned questioning that can occur is if the officer believes the public is in some type of danger. For example, if police come across a man standing in a convenience store that fits the description of recent thefts in a nearby neighborhood and the man runs once police confront him and is later caught and searched, when upon the search they realize he has an empty shoulder holster. In this scenario the public is in potential danger, the police can ask him where the gun is hidden without reading the man his rights and it would not be violating his Fifth Amendment rights.

    Read More

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

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    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 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 dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights

    1348 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    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

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

Open Document