Preview

Miranda v Arizona

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
833 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Miranda v Arizona
Why did the Miranda Warning become the law for all United States citizens?

What Is Miranda?
Miranda Warning also known, as Miranda Rights is a warning given by police in the U.S to criminal suspects in police custody, before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. Miranda Warnings consist of the following:
You have the right remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?
With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?
Police departments in Indiana, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska add this sentence: “We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.

The suspect must give a clear answer to these questions. Silence isn’t acceptable as waiving these rights because the arrestee might not understand or speak English as his/her first language. If the Miranda Warnings has to be translated for a suspect, the translation is usually recorded. If the person implies at anytime prior to or during questioning, he/she wants to remain silent the interrogation must end. If the person says that they want an attorney, the interrogation must come to an end, until an attorney is present. At this time the person must have a chance to confer with their attorney and their attorney must be present during questioning. If the accused person confesses to the authorities, the prosecution must prove to the judge that the defendant was informed of their Miranda Rights and knowingly waived those rights, before the confession can be introduced in the defendant’s criminal trial. It’s important to know that police are enforced to “Mirandize” a suspect if they plan to interrogate that person under custody. If the police do not inform a person or

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The first court ruling where Miranda was found guilty to armed robbery was thrown out after his case was and brought up to the Supreme Court. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have informed them of their rights, which are now called Miranda Rights. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights while in custody, therefore any confessions he made could not be used against him in court. At the Supreme Court level, the conviction was overthrown because he was not informed of his right against self incrimination and his right to remain silent. The case was later re-tried without using his confessions in the trial. Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years for armed robbery. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping, he could not be prosecuted for it because there was not enough evidence to show he was the offender in those crimes once his confession was thrown out. Chief justice, Earl Warren established the…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Miranda rights are the rights a police offer is required to say to someone when the officer arrests that person. It is the warning that officers of the law give suspects so they know about their rights before they are interrogated. It was a law made after the conclusions of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. The case was very close as it was a 5-4 decision. The court ruled that any type of evidence, whether it is incriminating or proof of innocence, can be used as evidence in a case; however it can only be used if the police let the suspect know that they have the right to an attorney before and during questioning and also that the suspect can be silent to avoid self-incrimination before an interrogation. It is now a staple when police arrests are made. In this paper, I will explain why I believe that the Miranda Rights are not necessary anymore.…

    • 922 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The rights you are read while being placed under arrest are the Miranda rights. They state that what you say will be used against you in court and that you have the right to an attorney. These rights are read to protect your freedom and to inform you of your constitutional rights. It became procedure to state the rights after the Miranda vs. Arizona case. Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for counts of kidnapping and rape. In court, Miranda argued that he did not know his rights and that they should have been told to him. He is the reason that criminal suspects receive more justice from police officers.…

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Miranda Rights are part of a preventative criminal procedure rule that states law enforcement are required to administer Miranda Rights to an individual who is in custody and is subject to direct questioning for a criminal violation of law. When a person is detained or taken into custodial arrest and interrogated for a criminal offense, if he or she wishes to remain silent the individual must expressly state that he or she chooses to remain silent. In addition, if the individual asserts that he or she wishes to speak to an attorney or have an attorney present, police must then cease interrogations and wait until…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda v. Arizona is a case that enabled the Supreme Court to fully identify and reiterate the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the police when arresting someone. The “Miranda Rights,” or “Miranda Warnings” are based off of these legal obligations: “Police must warn a suspect “prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”…

    • 746 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright, 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They cannot try to pry information out of someone if they have not been read their rights or if they ask for their attorney. It is a different story though is someone just starts rambling on when they are not asked. “Suspects can reinitiate an interrogation by coming forward and indicating to police they wish to talk and are willing to waive their Miranda rights. If there is a break in detention, the police may reinitiate the interrogation after fourteen days” (Wright, 2013).…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    However, when Miranda was arrested he was not told his rights that are stated in amendment number five. On appeal, Miranda's lawyers pointed out that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, he was not told that everything that he said could be used against him. In the end of 1966, The United State's Supreme Court gave support to the defendant side by only a 5 - 4 majority. The Supreme Court decision detailed the principles governing police interrogation. In addition, they…

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    It is important for the police to read you your Miranda Rights because, if they don’t read your rights when you are being questioned, anything you say can’t be held against you. If they don’t read your rights, and you come clean about everything it won’t matter. You could be in court on trial telling them everything, but if they didn’t read your rights they have to let you go. It is also very important for people to hear their rights, so that they know they don't have to talk if they do not wish to; and that they will be provided an attorney if needed.…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Different ways of interrogations are used by officers to deal with suspects. Most often we do not know what is going on inside the interrogation room. The main purpose of the interrogation is to get possible answers that pacify their need of evidence to the case. Police are most criticizes of their way handling interrogations during custodial questioning which often uses deception to get whatever evidence needed. According to Skolnick and Leo there are eight types of interrogations deceptions. Interview versus interrogate which is the most subtle way of deception. Most often overlooked strategy the police always employ on suspects. By telling the suspects that he is free and can leave any time thus engages him to voluntary answering of questions that otherwise be considered an interrogation into a non-custodial interview. Miranda Warning, in order for a questioning to be custodial, police recite their Miranda rights. This routinely delivered phrase is always delivered in a recital flat monotone of voice that makes this warning a bureaucratic ritual. Police sometimes used this warning to soften up suspects. The Court in Miranda that police cannot trick or deceive a suspect into waiving Miranda rights. The misrepresenting the nature or seriousness of the Offense which police exaggerate, overstate or understate the offense in order for the suspect to compel in answering questions during custody. Role playing where police play the role of a compassionate friend, bother or father figure who understands the suspect’s situation in order to have their trust then later on seek the opportunity to let the suspect confess for the good of the investigation. Misinterpreting the moral seriousness of the offense is the heart of the interrogation method that propounded by Inbau, Reid and Buckley’s influential police training manual. Police interrogating the case offer suspects excuses or moral justification for their misconduct by providing the suspect with an external attribution…

    • 685 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Miranda Law

    • 1709 Words
    • 7 Pages

    * G. S. Prentzas, Miranda Rights: Protecting the Rights of the Accused. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2005.…

    • 1709 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Supreme Court decision of 1966 of Miranda dictated a specific practice and conduct that law enforcement had to comply with when dealing with criminal suspects. It established that law enforcement was demanded to advise arrested persons or suspects of criminal acts that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and they have the right to an attorney. If they were not informed of these rights then a violation had occurred under the 5th Amendment regarding self-incrimination.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Criminal Justice

    • 416 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Miranda warning as prescribed by the landmark ruling Miranda V. Arizona is designed to do at least two things. One to ensure the rights of those who are held in custody from incriminating themselves per the fifth amendment of the United States without any forceful or undue treatment and to safeguard the process of justice. Justice has been sacrificed several times because of how it was carried out. The Miranda warning was instituted that justice would be served on all fronts both by way of the law and for those who are a target of the law. Consider the responses below.…

    • 416 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    • After all procedural steps are complete you will be put into a holding cell, do…

    • 1305 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Warnings

    • 997 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Now the question is what should I do in this case? What I would do is tell the main person in charge at that moment, it could be the captain, sergeant, or lieutenant, that the criminal needs an interpreter in order to Mirandize the suspect. Also, I would deal with the family in English since they are English speakers. If the family doesn’t understand the meaning of Miranda rights I would explain the meaning of…

    • 997 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays