Argument Against Miranda Rights

It was later noticed upon an appeal to the state Supreme Court that the officer who arrested Miranda, did not state his basic rights and was affirmed. (legaldictionary.net, Procedural History). This also means that Miranda couldn’t be set free because he did not ask to have an to be attorney present. But, Miranda and other defendants with similar cases petitioned to the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate the case and to have another ruling. The overall ruling of the final case to have it mandatory to read these specific rights was passed and are vital to the process of being arrested and

According to Time Magazine, “without these Miranda warnings, the court deemed, prosecutors could not use statements made by defendants under interrogation” (TIME). The following opinion was written by Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Stewart and White, “But the basic flaws in the Court's justification seem to me readily apparent now once all sides of the problem are

To ensure that your rights are protected under the United States Constitution, the Miranda warning must be read to you upon an arrest. Danny Escobedo, a 22-year-old murder suspect, was arrested and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with a shooting of his brother-in-law, about 11 days prior. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but was released after making no statement and had his lawyer obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. In police custody, Escobedo confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim. He was not advised of his right to remain silent, violating his Fifth Amendment, and police interrogated Escobedo for several hours, while repeatedly denying his request to consult with

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), holds an important position in the United States law history of suspects, giving some the right to preserve their innocence and others the chance to remain silent even if they are guilty. To be a free, just nation, there lies many important responsibilities upon the lawmakers of the nation, which leads them to consider every single fact relating an individual’s rights. I personally give my stance in the favour of this decision. There are many important cases related to fundamental rights of fairness of the suspects in the United States history such as “Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 and Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, but Miranda v. Arizona was granted the top position by U.S. government. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963, being charged of kidnapping and rape.

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).

The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that a defendant, “must be warned 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 ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate

The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.

When the police are asking questions i think the people should have the right to have a lawyer present and the reason to having a lawyer present is to protect you and the lawyer can make the police to stop asking me or anyone questions the lawyer also fights for you in court and if the lawyer is good then you could possibly be set free. that 's why the people of our country should know are constitutional rights, that 's why miranda got arrested in the first place is he didn 't know anything about our rights and he set there and let that cop make him confess and the bad part about all of this is the cop knew the rights but chose not to read them to him,i thank 9f miranda would have known his rights that cop wouldn 't have been able to set there and just keep

Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

Signifying, if an officer cannot prove important situations the arrest of someone may be canceled. As a result of the Fourth Amendment, U.S citizens are protected from unfair or unwanted

The reason I think the Miranda right is important is because it’s protects people from police misconduct. It’s also intended to protect the guiltily as well as the innocent in whatever crime your faces. By reading that warning you are protected at all cost. Once that warning has been read to you, and you are told that you have the right to remain silent or a lawyer. Under no circumstances anyone can force you to talk unless your lawyer is there, and or you just want to confess.

Also a person being interrogated might give a false confession if it were not for the ability to remain silent (Taylor, 2015). The criminal justice system is in the United Stated of America is not without flaws, but it has certain protections built in to safeguard the individual from government oppression. The fifth amendment is one of them, it affords a person protection from being forced to give evidence against themselves. Should this right be violated there are remedies in place whereby any evidence gain from this violation can not be used against the person. There is also the possibility of a civil suit for a violation of one's fifth amendment rights by the government or its

The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

Arizon was that the Court needed to decide when and how the suspects could have constitutional rights. There were so many problems in regard to this issue, for example, should the suspects keep silence all the time or just during the trial? In order to clarify these questions, the the Supreme Court released the decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warnings are established as followings: Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed (Sidlow & Henschen,