There were four different cases that were addressed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. These cases involve custodial interrogations and in each of these cases, the defendant was cut off from the outside world while they were being interrogated in a room by the police officers, detectives, as well as prosecuting attorneys. In the four cases, not even one of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights during the interrogation process. Furthermore, the questioning done in all the cases elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.…
Janet Ainsworth’s journal article, “’You Have the Right to Remain Silent. . .’ But Only If You Ask for It Just So: The Role of Linguistic Ideology in American Police Interrogation Law,” addresses the complexities that arise when attempting to invoke Miranda rights. Ainsworth begins the article by explaining how the Miranda rights were established as a compromise with its initial goal to alleviate pressure from those detained. She references the Davis v United States case as a key example due to its ruling which held that Miranda rights could only be invoked when the language used by the arrestee has a clear and unambiguous meaning.…
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.…
Ainsworth shows that this is not the case, as the reading of the Miranda Rights was brought about by the Supreme Court as a compromise to keep the effectiveness of interrogation without violating the rights of the suspect. By making the reading of the Miranda Rights legal and necessary, suspects are made aware of their rights but are not told how to bring them about. This also means that it is incredibly easy for suspects to waive their rights by simply using incorrect wording or even not speaking at all. The reading also serves the purpose of allowing police to interrogate. Of course, the very need for the Miranda Rights suggests that there is an innate injustice in the use of interrogation. This is because of the inherent power dynamic between the police officers and the suspects. Officers hold sway over the suspects and know very well how to use legal language. The typical suspect does not and because of this sense of powerlessness is therefore submissive to the officer, which leads to meek behavior and language. They lack the authority necessary in using legal language to bring about the actions they would require, such as a lawyer, if they even realized they were in need of…
Cassell, P. G. The Miranda Debate, Law Justice and Policy. Boston : Northeastern University Press, 1996.…
Compare the use of “Miranda Warnings” when questioning suspects who are in police custody with those who are not in police custody. Determine when a statement made is inadmissible in court.…
In June of 1966, the outcome of the trial - Miranda v. Arizona declared that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when being placed under arrest, bringing about the creation of the Miranda Rights and forever altering all criminal arrests and police conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process.…
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.…
Miranda warnings were created to protect individuals and their rights against coercive or threatening questioning methods by police officers from Miranda Warning.org(2013). Everyone has heard the “you have the right to remain silent” speech, so on and so forth. These rights do not just apply to adults but juveniles as well. In the case of the young boy who was arrested standing outside someones home there are four issues that need to be addressed. To the new officer I would address the situation as follows. So during your first arrest there were a few things that need to be addressed as to how it went about.…
It is now such standard police procedure that it is difficult to think it continues to make such a large and costly effect on the US court systems. Just about everyone knows about the Miranda law now, and suspects can waive their Miranda rights if they choose, and they are informed they are waiving their rights if they choose to talk to an interrogator anyway. As one expert notes, Miranda has not really created a new wave of interrogation – suspects will still waive their rights if they think it will help serve them in some way. "Guilty suspects who think they can outsmart police would have talked in the 'old days' and today gladly waive their Miranda rights and talk to the police. Guilty suspects who can be tricked into making damaging statements by the police can also be tricked into waiving their Miranda rights (Thomas 1). Thus, Miranda, while creating controversy, really has not seemed to flood the courts with inadmissible cases, neither has it changed, for the most part, how police go about getting confessions from suspects. Thus, the arguments that Miranda costs the taxpayer more money while allowing suspects to go free simply does not hold water. In addition, in many cases, the Miranda rule helps policing, because it ensures the information the police obtain will hold up in court, and it ensures the rights of the suspect are maintained…
Did the officers adhere to the procedural steps that are required once the suspect incriminates himself? The rule in this case is in order for the suspect to be read the Miranda rights; Officer must have both, Custody and Interrogation. They must also use the “4 prong test if suspect’s statements can be admitted into evidence. Was the statement voluntary? Was the Miranda warning given? Was there a waiver by the suspect? Was the waiver intelligent and voluntary”? (Roberson, C, Harvey Wallace. 1/2015 pg. 105). After analyzing the case study, it specifically states that, “John voluntarily made incriminating statements to the arresting officers”. In chapter 3 it states that “voluntary statements made by the defendant without having received…
Just imagine one day you are driving to work and while you are driving you see red and blue light behind you. Well we all know what this means, the police is behind you so we do what everyone does pull over expecting he will just pass us. As you are slowing down you notice that the officer is slowing down with you. You are curious, you do not believe you were spend but are not sure maybe a tail light is out? The officer gets out his car walks up to your vehicle and tells you to step out of the vehicle, you oblige, he tells you to turn around and he cuffs you and puts you in the back of his police car. The officer then proceeds to search your vehicle looking for something. What would be going through your mind at that time would you be thinking where is my rights maybe you would think this is unlawful? After the search, you seen the officer clearly did not find what he is looking for so you are expecting to be release with an apology! But this does not happen instead he gets in the police car and takes you down town. I could just imagine what is going through your mind know “What is that law that protects me from this.” You were not read your Miranda rights you did not give permission to search the vehicle and you were not told what you are being arrested for. Know we both know what you are thinking dollar signs because we both know this is not lawful. This is harassment and the Constitution protects all citizens against this type of punishment.…
Miranda Warnings are important because it makes District Attorneys and United States Attorneys need more than a confession to prosecute. Getting more than a confession might seem unnecessary for Law Enforcement Officials, but in the past,…
In the attempt to further protect these liberties the Warren Court upheld and the strengthened the Fourth amendment. The Miranda rights were an absolutely necessary evil. It help our nation’s government to do its job, which is to protect the people that inhabit these United States from falling prey due to the fact that they are oblivious to the law. But as seen in the certain cases (e.g Miranda v. Arizona) it is a necessary evil. Without the Miranda rights, America would have a hunting culture. Cops would become hunters rather than investigators. Interrogations would become a way for the hunter to capture and attack its unwilling prey. Though, The Miranda Rights allowed some people like Ernesto Miranda conviction to be overturned, it is still very important that law enforcement make the necessary effort in assuring that Fourth amendment is secured and protected to create a just and fair system where the constitution is not just a “form of words” but actual law that applies to…
Miranda or Miranda rights is the name of a warning that is given by an officer to criminals before they are brought into custody. Miranda right is something that tells a criminal his or her own rights to do. This means that the Miranda rights is so important because police officers always must tell people their rights before arresting them, so If the officers don’t tell them anything the person would not know what he or she have to do. So before you are questioned by the police they say you have the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney if indigent an attorney will be provided for them, and anything you say will be used against you in the court of law. So if you are caught by an officer and he or she doesn’t say the Miranda…