Why People Wive Their Miranda Rights

After 1963, one would be able to have a lawyer at their side during questioning and be able to consult him/her. If the defendant was being pressured into a confession the lawyer would be able to step in. Today, when a suspect is arrested, they are read a Miranda warning, which typically follows these lines: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to speak to an attorney and have an attorney present during any questioning.

He also spoke on the phone with respondent’s wife and mother. He attempted once, unsuccessfully to meet with them; however, he did not follow up a second time. Additionally, the counsel did not seek out additional character witnesses for respondent. The counsel’s conversations with his client led him to believe he did not need to request a psychiatric examination because he did not believe the respondent had psychological problems. In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state, because he believed it would not overcome the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s confessions to the crimes.

In this case, those tactics were pushed to the extreme. The interrogators showed complete dominance in order for Miranda to confess. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation declares, “He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). In this examination, the rudiments of investigations over-stepped their “dominance” and nearly forced a confession. The accused must be informed of their rights to avoid this mistreatment, otherwise the person suspected is practically compelled to speak, even though they might not do so normally (Document G).

Having police require to remind arrested citizens of their Constitutional rights is fundamental. Without the Miranda Rights citizens might not know the rights the Bill of Rights grants every citizen.

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

He not only waives his rights for legal counsel in the initial interrogations but without legal council is guided into giving his

Miranda Vs. Arizona On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his home in Phoenix, Arizona in regards to a rape and kidnapping. After a two hour interrogation, the police had finally gained a confession from Ernesto.

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.

In the United States constitution there are important amendments written that help protect the American citizens form the government. Among those amendments is the Fifth Amendment which is to protect the people from incriminating themselves from unlawful justice. This was put in place so the people that are uninformed of the laws has a chance to speck with a lawyer before being question for a crime that they might not have committed. In the fifth amendment there is multiple parts, the first part is the Miranda rights which are given to you when you are being arrested.

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.

A man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was taken to custody in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. Then was sentenced 20-30 years in jail. He was interrogated for two hours by two police men, every individual should have their own rights to ask and answer questions unless told to Mirandize by a police man or the judge. Ernesto was being asked questions during the interrogation and the thing you’re supposed to do when they ask you questions is answer the questions, so Ernesto should have the right to talk during the interrogation. Ernesto didn’t know he should have a lawyer present during court when they discussed about his case of kidnapping and rape.

I don’t see any Cons; only Pros with the Miranda rights, which are that it allows the person in custody to be informed of their rights, letting them know that they do not have to speak if they do not want to. That they cannot be coerced to confess to something that they don’t want to confess to, because it might not stand up in criminal proceedings; and it covers the arresting officer and if any evidence is obtained it can be used in court. I do think the police should have to read the Miranda warning in all situations. People need to be informed. Sometimes a situation can seem so small, but I think that if this warning is given in any situation the person being detained can know that they do not have to speak without an attorney present and

“Courts have permitted the interrogators to tell the suspect that if he confesses his conscience will be comforted or they will inform the suspect’s cooperation to the court” (Richard 2008). It is unethical to promise and give hope to the suspect that will not be met in order to obtain a voluntary confession which are induced. During interrogation someone may walk in and hide his identity like being a police officer, while acting like someone else and promise the suspect that he or she is here to help and they are in good hands. Doing this is violating the rights of the suspect and should be taken into consideration, because it inflicts the mind of a suspect. If the suspect is going to confess it should be voluntary not being forced to “voluntary

B. Whether from evidence or a personal hunch, some interrogators interview suspects as if they are guilty, which causes an incorrect interrogation that leads to extensive stress and pressure. C. But if the investigator approaches the interrogation believing the detainee is guilty, the ensuing interrogation is more pressure-filled and coercive. This results in the innocent detainee (who is likely to waive their rights) being at increased risk for false confession due to the pressure of the interrogation process. (Keene) D.