Criminal Liability In The Miranda Vs. Arizona Supreme Court Case
Criminal Law
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you. These famous words came from Miranda vs. Arizona, a Supreme Court case that took place March 13, 1963 when Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department, who failed to advise him of his rights to an attorney and his rights to remain silent. This case has given alleged offenders a chance to have their voice be heard and gives them an opportunity to have a fair trial.
Howes, Warden vs. Fields is a recent Supreme Court case that was argued in October 2011 and a decision was made in February 2012. Randall Lee …show more content…
The source in this case is the Fifth Amendment, which is the protection against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. The purpose of the criminal law is to create punishments that coincide with crimes for the intention of maintaining public order, establishing a set of public norms, and to create a level of predictability in human behavior and the jurisdiction for this case is judicial. What is accomplice liability and criminal liability and how does it relate to this case? Accomplice liability allows the court to find a person criminally liable for acts committed by a different person. If a person aids, assists, or encourages another in the commission of a crime, they are said to be an “accomplice” to the crime. The person who actually commits the act is called the “principal”. The crime for which an accomplice provides assistance is called the “target crime” ("Legal Dictionary", 2011). Criminal liability arises from breaking the law or committing a criminal act. Accomplice liability does not apply to Howes, Warden vs. Fields, but criminal liability does. Randall Lee Fields committed a criminal act when he sexually abused an 11 year old boy prior to going to …show more content…
Actus reus is known as conduct, which mean a person cannot be charged for thinking a crime, they must have committed an actual crime. Mens rea is the mental state of a person, which means the crime must have been voluntarily or purposely committed. Finally, concurrence means actus reus and mens rea must be committed at the same time. For this particular case none of these elements are relevant, because Randall Lee Fields only admitted to sexually abusing the minor he never went into detail about why he committed the act. In conclusion, I believe a prisoner in custody should advised of his rights to counsel before being asked about a crime he committed. Questioning a prisoner about a crime that occurred before he was sentenced to prison without advising them to their right of counsel seems to be a way to lure a person in admitting to a crime. Criminal law has many rules and regulations and if not followed properly can cause a downward spiral in the
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you. These famous words came from Miranda vs. Arizona, a Supreme Court case that took place March 13, 1963 when Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department, who failed to advise him of his rights to an attorney and his rights to remain silent. This case has given alleged offenders a chance to have their voice be heard and gives them an opportunity to have a fair trial.
Howes, Warden vs. Fields is a recent Supreme Court case that was argued in October 2011 and a decision was made in February 2012. Randall Lee …show more content…
The source in this case is the Fifth Amendment, which is the protection against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. The purpose of the criminal law is to create punishments that coincide with crimes for the intention of maintaining public order, establishing a set of public norms, and to create a level of predictability in human behavior and the jurisdiction for this case is judicial. What is accomplice liability and criminal liability and how does it relate to this case? Accomplice liability allows the court to find a person criminally liable for acts committed by a different person. If a person aids, assists, or encourages another in the commission of a crime, they are said to be an “accomplice” to the crime. The person who actually commits the act is called the “principal”. The crime for which an accomplice provides assistance is called the “target crime” ("Legal Dictionary", 2011). Criminal liability arises from breaking the law or committing a criminal act. Accomplice liability does not apply to Howes, Warden vs. Fields, but criminal liability does. Randall Lee Fields committed a criminal act when he sexually abused an 11 year old boy prior to going to …show more content…
Actus reus is known as conduct, which mean a person cannot be charged for thinking a crime, they must have committed an actual crime. Mens rea is the mental state of a person, which means the crime must have been voluntarily or purposely committed. Finally, concurrence means actus reus and mens rea must be committed at the same time. For this particular case none of these elements are relevant, because Randall Lee Fields only admitted to sexually abusing the minor he never went into detail about why he committed the act. In conclusion, I believe a prisoner in custody should advised of his rights to counsel before being asked about a crime he committed. Questioning a prisoner about a crime that occurred before he was sentenced to prison without advising them to their right of counsel seems to be a way to lure a person in admitting to a crime. Criminal law has many rules and regulations and if not followed properly can cause a downward spiral in the