Miranda Rights Argumentative Analysis
People always hear police officers on TV say, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you." These are very powerful words that police officers say to people who have been arrested or are being interrogated. These words are referred to as the Miranda Rights or Miranda Warnings. The Miranda Rights are used to inform people who have been accused of a crime about their rights before they are questioned. Reading people a very specific script describing their rights ensures that they are informed of how their words can be used and how they may protect themselves by remaining silent or waiting for an attorney before speaking. Since Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda Warnings have become a vital form of protection in criminal
…show more content…
However, he had not been truly informed of his right to counsel, the right to remain silent, and the fact that his statement could be used against him. He was subsequently convicted of rape and kidnapping. He later filed an appeal stating that his confession was not voluntary and should not have been used against him. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona ruled that no confession could be admissible under the 5th amendment self-incrimination clause and the 6th amendment right to attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and waived them. It became a common law to state the Miranda Warnings before questioning somebody. It was a law before, but it wasn’t enforced until after 1966, which is significant to the case as Miranda had rights, but he wasn’t aware of all of them, particularly the ones that are now the Miranda Rights and the Miranda Warnings. The Miranda Warnings were thought to be a temporary idea, however it has lasted for more than half a century. Miranda v. Arizona was not the …show more content…
The accused have the right to remain silent. It is typically misrepresented on TV, where it implied that the accused must stay silent, and anything they say will hurt their case. The true meaning of having the right to remain silent means that the accused can choose to to remain silent for any question they don’t want to answer. The accused is informed of the fact that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. It is misrepresented on TV by omitting the “in the court of law” portion, where it is interpreted to mean that if they say something, it may automatically be used against them by hurting their case or claim The accused has the right to an attorney, and one will be provided to those who cannot afford one. It is very helpful because it provides a partner that the accused can trust when in court for their trial. With these rights in place, anyone can abstain from answering any question. They are also able to “plead the fifth”: which refers to invoking the Fifth amendment from which the Miranda Rights stem. They can have an attorney present, even when they cannot afford it. All of the portions of the Miranda Rights are explained on www.mirandarights.org. But when the accused are warned of these rights, they are called the Miranda Warnings. The difference between the Miranda Rights and the Miranda Warnings are the fact that the Miranda Rights are what everyone has at all times, and
However, he had not been truly informed of his right to counsel, the right to remain silent, and the fact that his statement could be used against him. He was subsequently convicted of rape and kidnapping. He later filed an appeal stating that his confession was not voluntary and should not have been used against him. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona ruled that no confession could be admissible under the 5th amendment self-incrimination clause and the 6th amendment right to attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and waived them. It became a common law to state the Miranda Warnings before questioning somebody. It was a law before, but it wasn’t enforced until after 1966, which is significant to the case as Miranda had rights, but he wasn’t aware of all of them, particularly the ones that are now the Miranda Rights and the Miranda Warnings. The Miranda Warnings were thought to be a temporary idea, however it has lasted for more than half a century. Miranda v. Arizona was not the …show more content…
The accused have the right to remain silent. It is typically misrepresented on TV, where it implied that the accused must stay silent, and anything they say will hurt their case. The true meaning of having the right to remain silent means that the accused can choose to to remain silent for any question they don’t want to answer. The accused is informed of the fact that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. It is misrepresented on TV by omitting the “in the court of law” portion, where it is interpreted to mean that if they say something, it may automatically be used against them by hurting their case or claim The accused has the right to an attorney, and one will be provided to those who cannot afford one. It is very helpful because it provides a partner that the accused can trust when in court for their trial. With these rights in place, anyone can abstain from answering any question. They are also able to “plead the fifth”: which refers to invoking the Fifth amendment from which the Miranda Rights stem. They can have an attorney present, even when they cannot afford it. All of the portions of the Miranda Rights are explained on www.mirandarights.org. But when the accused are warned of these rights, they are called the Miranda Warnings. The difference between the Miranda Rights and the Miranda Warnings are the fact that the Miranda Rights are what everyone has at all times, and