What Are Miranda Warnings Necessary?

371 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Miranda v arizona paraphrased

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.
According to Gina Fredericks Jones, Miranda warnings are necessary in protecting the rights of the people. Jones believes that each citizen has particular rights and should not be subject to "heavy-handed tactics" by police and thus

Show More
Related

  • False Confessions and the Norfolk Four Case

    2738 Words  | 6 Pages

    Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.

    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

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. 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 decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects.

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona's Case Analysis

    1186 Words  | 3 Pages

    Due process of law has been one of the major principles of the United States justice system. One part of due process is that police officers must follow regulations to ensure suspects are treated fair. Until the 1960’s there were no guidelines on the rights of a suspect during an interrogation. Miranda V. Arizona was a fundamental Supreme Court case that established a procedure police must follow while arresting a suspect, it also established the rights an individual has during the interrogation process. In this paper we will discuss the circumstances leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, the reasoning behind the court’s decision, the ways it has impacted the criminal justice system, and finally how the decision in Miranda’s case effected

    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

  • 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

  • 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

    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.

    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

  • Miranda Rights: Transforming Crime and Justice

    1808 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Miranda Rights themselves are “...part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are

    Read More

  • The Miranda Warning

    551 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda is a ruling which says that the accused have the right to remain silent and prosecutors may not use statements made by them while in police custody, unless the police advice them of their rights. In other words, a police officer must inform a suspect of this fundamental right, under the Fifth Amendment, at the time of their arrest and or interrogation. Miranda protect ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves.

    Read More

  • The Right to Remain Silent

    2166 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Right to Remain Silent The right of silence long considered the most fundamental right of a

    Read More

  • Domestic Violence Informative Speech

    1062 Words  | 3 Pages

    Now that I have shared with you the definition of an IPV and a few examples, I will now like to share 2012 North Carolina Statistics for Violent Deaths related to IPV.

    Read More

  • Criminal Investigator Essay

    848 Words  | 2 Pages

    In conclusion Miranda rights should be given before in custody interrogations. Interrogations include any express questioning or any verbal or non verbal behavior by law to get an incriminating statement by a suspect. Miranda rights not only refer to expressed questioning but words by the police. When the Miranda rights are read it is crucial that they ensure the suspect understands these rights. The role of a Criminal investigator should include integrity and ethics these qualities help agencies become more effective and trust worthy to the communities

    Read More

  • The Defence of Duress or The Defense of Necessity

    1676 Words  | 4 Pages

    The defense of duress is available where a defendant commits a crime to prevent the greater of death or serious injury to himself or another threatened by a third party. On the other hand, the defense of necessity refers to circumstances where a person chooses to commit an offence to avoid a greater evil to them or another which would result from objective dangers arising from the circumstances in which they are placed . The difference between these two similar defenses is that duress is regarded as an excuse in English Law, whereas necessity is regarded as a justificatory defense.

    Read More

More about What Are Miranda Warnings Necessary?

Open Document