Preview

Miranda Rights Argumentative Analysis

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1400 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Miranda Rights Argumentative Analysis
People always hear police officers on TV say, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you." These are very powerful words that police officers say to people who have been arrested or are being interrogated. These words are referred to as the Miranda Rights or Miranda Warnings. The Miranda Rights are used to inform people who have been accused of a crime about their rights before they are questioned. Reading people a very specific script describing their rights ensures that they are informed of how their words can be used and how they may protect themselves by remaining silent or waiting for an attorney before speaking. Since Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda Warnings have become a vital form of protection in criminal …show more content…
However, he had not been truly informed of his right to counsel, the right to remain silent, and the fact that his statement could be used against him. He was subsequently convicted of rape and kidnapping. He later filed an appeal stating that his confession was not voluntary and should not have been used against him. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona ruled that no confession could be admissible under the 5th amendment self-incrimination clause and the 6th amendment right to attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and waived them. It became a common law to state the Miranda Warnings before questioning somebody. It was a law before, but it wasn’t enforced until after 1966, which is significant to the case as Miranda had rights, but he wasn’t aware of all of them, particularly the ones that are now the Miranda Rights and the Miranda Warnings. The Miranda Warnings were thought to be a temporary idea, however it has lasted for more than half a century. Miranda v. Arizona was not the …show more content…
The accused have the right to remain silent. It is typically misrepresented on TV, where it implied that the accused must stay silent, and anything they say will hurt their case. The true meaning of having the right to remain silent means that the accused can choose to to remain silent for any question they don’t want to answer. The accused is informed of the fact that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. It is misrepresented on TV by omitting the “in the court of law” portion, where it is interpreted to mean that if they say something, it may automatically be used against them by hurting their case or claim The accused has the right to an attorney, and one will be provided to those who cannot afford one. It is very helpful because it provides a partner that the accused can trust when in court for their trial. With these rights in place, anyone can abstain from answering any question. They are also able to “plead the fifth”: which refers to invoking the Fifth amendment from which the Miranda Rights stem. They can have an attorney present, even when they cannot afford it. All of the portions of the Miranda Rights are explained on www.mirandarights.org. But when the accused are warned of these rights, they are called the Miranda Warnings. The difference between the Miranda Rights and the Miranda Warnings are the fact that the Miranda Rights are what everyone has at all times, and

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Summary

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages

    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.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • 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

    Reynold Lancaster discussed how the Miranda warning is used by police officers and other law enforcements when they arrest a person of interest. The Miranda warning allows the officers…

    • 326 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Their reasoning behind this decision was because it needed to be stated that he had to the right to remain silent. Not only this, but he was not told that anything that he said could be used against him in the future. These reasons were then able to prove that Miranda was not able to speak to the police freely upon his own choice of decision. One of the reasons for the decision made was because Miranda did not know he had the right to an attorney leading for him to not have full knowledge of the case and what was going on. Therefore, because the fifth amendment was not applicable to the situation that Miranda was in the prosecution should not have been able to use any of the statements that were…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of Miranda v. Arizona set a precedence on how future suspects would be interrogated. It makes complete sense to advise a person that is being interrogated that he or she has a right to remain silent during interrogation and that he or she has the right to have counsel present during an interrogation. It's also important that the suspect be fully aware and full understand his or her rights before the interrogation begins. -WRITTEN AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION-METHODS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT By Harvey Wallace and Cliff Roberson(CHAPTER 9 PAGE 136)…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. The police took him into custody, and transported him to a Phoenix police station. The witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then lead to the interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to question him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the right to an attorney to be present during the questioning. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Located on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Arizona made requirements that the law had to follow, which stated law enforcement officials must follow protocol before questioning suspect in custody. “These rules specified that a suspect must be read the “Miranda warning,” now famous from police shows on television, and then must be asked whether he agrees to “waive” those rights. If the suspect declines, the police are required to stop all questioning. Even if the suspect waives his rights, at any time during an interrogation he can halt the process by retracting the waiver or asking for a lawyer. From that point on, the police are not allowed even to suggest that the suspect reconsider” ("National Center for Policy Analysis", 1996). Since the requirements were made and law enforcement has to abide by the facts of the impact, they have found that it is more complicated to get the offenders to admit to wrong doing with a confession. After the decision of the Miranda rights, various states in the US had a percentage drop of individuals whom actually confessed. With the states having so many individuals accused of a crime and the Miranda rule taking effect, they found that it makes it complex to solve the crime at hand. Since that present time the rates of solving crimes have drastically changed and have concurrently stayed that way from that time to current. Knowingly not be able to solve as many violent or property crimes, less convictions have become a tough issue. The effects of the…

    • 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

    Over the years the Miranda rights are used to ensure justice and preserve liberty ever since the case Miranda v. Arizona. All though people may see the Miranda Rights/ warning as an act of not trying to ensure justice it is because if we didn't use them today then there would be many more cases like Miranda v. Arizona and lead to a corruptio in our police stations atound th…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright, 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They cannot try to pry information out of someone if they have not been read their rights or if they ask for their attorney. It is a different story though is someone just starts rambling on when they are not asked. “Suspects can reinitiate an interrogation by coming forward and indicating to police they wish to talk and are willing to waive their Miranda rights. If there is a break in detention, the police may reinitiate the interrogation after fourteen days” (Wright, 2013).…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    However, when Miranda was arrested he was not told his rights that are stated in amendment number five. On appeal, Miranda's lawyers pointed out that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, he was not told that everything that he said could be used against him. In the end of 1966, The United State's Supreme Court gave support to the defendant side by only a 5 - 4 majority. The Supreme Court decision detailed the principles governing police interrogation. In addition, they…

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 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 vs. Arizona

    • 454 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Creation of the Miranda rights has changed the relationship between citizen state and police suspects. Citizens now have the right to be informed and assurance that they will be protected by institutional power. Suspects can now anybody that they had nothing to with it. The Miranda warnings are rights that are not protected by the Constitution. They are simply a precaution to guarantee protection against self –incrimination. Without the Miranda rights, the treatment of criminals would not be fair.…

    • 454 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The first court ruling where Miranda was found guilty to armed robbery was thrown out after his case was and brought up to the Supreme Court. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have informed them of their rights, which are now called Miranda Rights. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights while in custody, therefore any confessions he made could not be used against him in court. At the Supreme Court level, the conviction was overthrown because he was not informed of his right against self incrimination and his right to remain silent. The case was later re-tried without using his confessions in the trial. Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years for armed robbery. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping, he could not be prosecuted for it because there was not enough evidence to show he was the offender in those crimes once his confession was thrown out. Chief justice, Earl Warren established the…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    It is important for the police to read you your Miranda Rights because, if they don’t read your rights when you are being questioned, anything you say can’t be held against you. If they don’t read your rights, and you come clean about everything it won’t matter. You could be in court on trial telling them everything, but if they didn’t read your rights they have to let you go. It is also very important for people to hear their rights, so that they know they don't have to talk if they do not wish to; and that they will be provided an attorney if needed.…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays