The Pros And Cons Of Miranda V. Arizona

574 Words2 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. There are pros and cons with Miranda Warnings and just as with anything you have to take the good with the bad. Pros would be that Miranda Warnings were meant to be used as a tool to …show more content…

I believe that I will have to side with the point that I think officers should have to explain Miranda at every stop. I know that a lot of my former and present colleagues would disagree but I feel that even thought there are other mechanisms in place to protect constitutional rights, this can also protect the officer against anything that might be said which could lead to something greater. For example if you stop a vehicle for failure to stop at signal, you pull him/her over, approach ask for credentials and so on. Once you inform the individual the reason that you are stopping for and he/she starts running their mouth and it slips somehow that they were just involved in a garage break in. Now when you try to find out more they say that they don’t know what you’re talking about. You now hear over the radio that there was a garage break in in the area. Now the individual you have stopped doesn’t want to cooperate at all. If the Miranda were given right at the beginning it would have made this a lot easier (For the sake of argument were are going to say there are no microphones or

More about The Pros And Cons Of Miranda V. Arizona

Open Document