Preview

Does The Miranda Right Unsure Justice And Preserve Liberty

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
235 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Does The Miranda Right Unsure Justice And Preserve Liberty
Does the Miranda right unsure justice and preserve liberty? The Miranda rights are a silent warning given to those that are accused of deeds they may or may have not committed. The Supreme Court dramatically changed the procedures throughout the country. They linked the Fifth Amendment to the Sixth Amendment to the suspect’s right from arrest through trail.
The Miranda rights in some cases do ensure justice and at times they don’t. They can unsure justice if they were read to the suspect but if not all the evidence they have collected could go out the window. But if they do read your rights they can continue with their investigation and them anything they find can be used against you. Do they preserve liberty? I personally think that it does not, nor does the Miranda rights unsure justice. I can’t speak from experience but what I have learned from cases I’ve read. I honestly don’t agree with the ways things are handled involving Miranda v. Arizona.
…show more content…

Though they help us they can also be a getaway ticket to some other people. If they play their cards right they can get away with things they have done. And depending on the outcome people get upset if a criminal gets away.
So do I believe that the Miranda v. Arizona does not unsure justice or preserve


You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Miranda v. Arizona case is considered to be one of the most important and famous cases in modern law history that provided the foundation for some important legal provisions. It occurred in 1966 in Arizona, when a young man named Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, was charged with robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a young woman several years prior the trial (Zalman, 2010). Before the suspect was interrogated, the police did not inform him of his constitutional right to remain silent which allowed the interrogators to get the confession. Given that this case provided the foundation for the right to remain silent, it became very famous and important. The present paper attempts to analyze the…

    • 140 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Arizona: (1966) Rights in custody Ernesto Miranda a man who had not completed the ninth grade was arrested at his home in Arizona and identified as a suspect ina rape-kidnapping case. When he was questioned about the crime Miranda maintained he was innocent, but after two hours of interrogation he signed a confession. At the trial the confession was admitted as evidence and the court found Miranda guilty. The police acknowledged that Miranda had not been made aware. of his rights during the process nor had he had access to legal counsel. While the Miranda confession was given with relatively little pressure it still violated the constitutional requirements that governed such procedures. Inthis case, the Warren court ruled that the accused must be made aware of his or her rights from the…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The year 1966 was a turning point for rights of United States citizens because of the Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping of a woman. Following his arrest, he was convicted based on his confession of the crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that his rights were violated according to the Fifth Amendment, which lead to his release. Reynolds Lancaster and Gina Jones were two authors that pointed importance of rights and issues related to the case Miranda v. Arizona, which lead to the Miranda warning.…

    • 326 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Vs. Arizona

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Page

    Does Miranda vs. Arizona ensure justice and preserve liberty? I believe it does. This even took place during the 1960s.The case in involve statements that were obtained for police from an individual that was arrest. Ernesto Miranda a Mexican immigrant, whom was not aware of his rights, was arrested without his Fifth Amendment given. He was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman. He was interrogated, without formal agreement to do so. Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in jail. When in court his attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.…

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case, the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly, this letter stated that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. From the evidence found, Miranda was sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. From here the Supreme Court stated that, “...Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession…” (Miranda V Arizona).…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    2. I definitely feel like the Miranda Warning is still a valid concept. I feel like reminds the suspect that they still have rights and they are still innocent until proven guilty. Being a suspect of any crime is probably very scary and can be overwhelming with emotions.…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Why is this even considered a constitutional law case? How did Miranda v. Arizona turn into a landmark United States Supreme Court case? When this case went to trial Miranda’s court appointed attorney found out that the police never informed Miranda of his Constitutional right to counsel. So in fact by not informing Miranda that he had the right to counsel the police violated his Fourteenth Amendment which is the right to due process and his sixth amendment which is a right to counsel. If he would have had counsel present in the room he may never have signed that form confessing to the kidnapping and rape of that 18 year old woman. Miranda’s court appointed attorney at trial objected to the confession saying that his clients fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights were violated. The trial judge overruled the objection mainly because the defendant never formally asked to have an attorney present or to see or speak with his attorney. So Miranda was convicted of the crime and sent to up to 30 years in prison. Miranda’s attorney the appealed the decision all the way up to the Arizona supreme court. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that they also believed that his rights were not violated because he never asked for an…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Soon thereafter his conviction Miranda appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme court. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction and Disagreed with the unconstitutional confession. It was then that Miranda took his appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In a fourth fifths vote the United States Supreme court ruled in favor of Miranda agreeing that the police that interrogated Miranda denied him of not only his 6th amendment right to counsel however also his fifth amendment right to incriminate himself. On a completely different note the Supreme Court recognized that Miranda as well as others accused of committing crimes have long been subject to police violence and intimidation especially during interrogations and therefore many confessions have been not only forced but possibly…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    In the Miranda vs Arizona case Miranda established that the police are required to inform arrested persons that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. The case involved a claim by the plaintiff that the state of Arizona, by obtaining a confession from him without having informed him of his right to have a lawyer present, had violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment regarding self incrimination. Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape and was interrogated for a long period of time. This interrogation resulted in a signed confession. At court Miranda lawyer argued that the confession was obtained from a person who does not understand their rights. The court agreed that a person should be informed of their rights and understand them before the police…

    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    What is miranda v. arizona? Do the miranda rights come to mind when you hear miranda v. arizona? Perhaps it does the Miranda rights came to be in 1963 when a man named ernesto miranda was accused of sexual assault towards a girl the case made it all way to the supreme court the case labeled as miranda v. arizona and ernesto was founded guilty of both kidnapping and sexual assault and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison he later then claimed the police did not read him his rights and because he wasn't given the right to remain silence his rights were violated and the case was reviewed again in 1966 because the police had failed to inform Miranda of his right to an attorney. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Arizona vs Miranda

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda was not given a full and effective warning of his rights. He was not told of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Miranda was found guilty of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. During the prosecution, Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. In the end of 1966, The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first informs Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court of Arizona detailed the principles governing police interrogation. Arizona ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Justice Douglas agrees with the arguments of Miranda, he was never notified of his rights ever even if there was a typed statement at the top it does not justify Miranda was read his rights. Although, the minority party consisting of Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart has a different opinion stating, “In two of the three cases coming from state courts, Miranda v. Arizona (No. 759) and Vignera v. New York (No. 760), the confessions were held admissible and no other errors worth comment are alleged by petitioners. I would affirm in these two cases.” (Miranda v. Arizona 1966) Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart agree with the decisions of both courts on their rulings of the Miranda case that there was no wrong doing and Miranda was aware of his rights when he sign the confession; therefore the confession is valid and can be used against Miranda. However, the others included in the majority party (Chief Justice Warren, Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas) who disagree with the idea of the minority party of affirming the case. On June 13, 1966 the Supreme Court ruled over the court case Miranda v. Arizona in favor of Miranda by a five to four vote stating that, “Miranda v. Arizona (1966)… required that custodial suspects be apprised of their Constitutional rights against self-incrimination.”( Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Robinson, E. V., Steadham, J. A., & Drogin, E. Y. 2013,…

    • 1651 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    First, individual liberties and freedoms are important since without them one can be held indefinitely. Habeas corpus also known as the “great writ of liberty” guarantees that a person who is being held unjustly can go free (Habeas corpus, 2011). This is one of the reasons that make America so great because anyone who is detained can know the reason why they are being held and in so are allowed due process under the law. The Constitution protects the…

    • 2236 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Some of the judges were not pleased with the ruling, they stated that Miranda’s written statement confessing to the crimes should not be completely ruled out and not used as evidence in the case in court. Justice Tom C. Clark claimed in his dissenting opinion, “the majority’s opinion created an unnecessary strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties” (Miranda v. Arizona). The judges that ruled in favor of Maranda stated that an individual who is being persecuted under the law should indeed know their rights, a defendant must be made aware of their right to remain silent prior to any interrogation, and they have the right for an attorney to be present during the interrogation. This case is important because it created the Miranda warning as a preventative criminal procedure to ensure that when criminals who are being prosecuted they are made aware that their fifth amendment is not being violated and that anything they say will be used against them in a court of…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays