Miranda V. Arizona 1966
Rules Miranda vs. Arizona 1966
Michalle Cochrane(Wilborn), Stephanie Cox, Shereka White and Vanetia Riley CJA 364
June 10, 2013 Jonathan Sperling
Rules Miranda vs. Arizona 1966
In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark of a decision to the United States Supreme Court, in which this was passed because it had four out of five agreeing. The Court held both exculpatory and inculpatory statements in which was made in response to interrogation by the person who is in the custody of the police who will be used in a trial only if the prosecution is able to show that the accused was informed of their right to consult with a lawyer before and even during any questioning and have the right against …show more content…
self-incrimination before even being questioned by the law enforcement, and they understand those rights, but still voluntary to waive those right. This has a huge impact on the police in the United States, because of them making the Miranda Rights a part of their routine to be making sure those that are suspects were told of their rights. Our Supreme Court decided the Miranda with three other cases that were consolidated. Vignera v. New York, California v. Stewart and Westover v. United States. “Miranda” warning is the name of a formal warning in which it requires to be given by the law enforcement officers in the United States to those that are criminal suspect in custody prior to them getting questioned, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. The purpose of this is to ensure those that are accused of a crime, and remind them of their rights under the United States Constitution, and to let them know that they can invoke them at any time during the interview.
Miranda v. Arizona is a criminal case that involved the inception of the “Miranda rights”; a statement made by case law from Miranda that is required to be read to all those being placed under arrest. In 1963 a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested on criminal charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. During the interrogation of Miranda, he confessed to all of the charges. The police that interrogated Miranda used tactics encouraging Miranda to confess. Miranda was later convicted on all charges using only the confessions as evidence and was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in state prison. The problem with the behavior of the police, the interrogation and the confessions was that Miranda was not properly informed of his constitutional right to have an attorney present during his interrogation, or furthermore that he was not required to speak to the police at all in regards to the crimes he was being accused of.
Miranda was an uneducated man that suffered from a history of mental illnesses; once Miranda was able to retain counsel he was advised that his confession was obtained unconstitutionally.
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 …show more content…
false.
In the case of Miranda given his mental instability, his lack of education and his fear of the law enforcement officers plus the fact that he was treated unconstitutionally, in 1966 three years after his conviction the Supreme Court decided to rule in the favor of the defendant. Not only did they rule in the favor of Miranda and overturn his conviction they also implemented a policy for all law enforcement agencies to abide by; each and every individual being accused of a crime and placed under arrest for that crime will be read a mandatory statement of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and also informed that they are not required to speak to the police or any other law enforcement officer without an attorney present, this statement is known as the “Miranda rights”.
The 1966 decision in Miranda v.
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
court’s decision on the public and law enforcement is that in spite of the court taking charge in the Miranda rule making favors of what society expects is a major part of how the constitution reacts to what is expected. What Miranda requires is that every individual lost, confused, satisfied or even in the right mind of their actions is that they are always protected no matter what the situation is. With that the court states that law officials are to always follow every aspect of what is expected when it comes to dealing with individuals and what the Miranda rule has abolished. The Court has based these safeguards on a purely pragmatic, cost-benefit assessment. The Court has specifically stated that the Miranda rules rest not on constitutional requirement but rather are a “carefully crafted balance designed to fully protect both the defendant’s and society’s interests.” ("Handcuffing the Cops", 1998). In view of the fact that the Miranda rule has completely changed how things are done in the justice system, society has a way of using that to the advantage of what the court allows and what aspects of the court is given to each individual during such times of needing to actually plead the fifth behind their beliefs after the Miranda rule.
Summary
The Miranda right clearly states, “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he/she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he/she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he/she is indigent an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him/her. The Miranda rights were design to protect suspect from self- incrimination. The right to remain silent is the ultimate pro when it comes to the Miranda rights. This means that a law enforcement official can ask the potential suspect anything and the suspect has the right to “Not Answer.” The right to an attorney presents and if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provide to you. Another pro which, means that the suspect does not have to say anything until his or her attorney is present and if they cannot afford on, the state in which the suspect is being held will provide one free of charge. Anything that a person say can and will be used in a court of law, is consider a pro because it let the suspect know that, “hey, we are not forcing you to talk but if you do, we will use it against you.” The last pro would be if the police did not read a person his or her Miranda rights, the evidence that they have can be suppress in court because the Miranda right are always supposed to be read during an arrest. However, when there are pros to things there are also cons to things. The biggest con in the Miranda rights is that the state will provide a person with a lawyer/attorney however that does not mean that the lawyer will have to be any good, it just means that since the person cannot afford lawyer the state will provide the person one. The state provides public defenders to people cannot afford lawyers, public defenders usually have a lot of cases, they cannot give equal amount of time to each case therefore, the United States lived up to their part which was to provide the person with counsel. If the Miranda rights are not read to the suspect, this could lead to acquittal or some of things that the suspect said could be suppress because it is very important that each accuse person is read their legal rights as it is states in the United States Constitution. The Miranda rights purpose is to make sure the suspect or the accuse person protected from incriminating him or herself. It is the job of the law enforcement officials to make sure that each and every person that they arrest is aware of their rights.
As we all can tell and see the Miranda Rights are not read to someone that is accused of doing a crime when they are arrested then there is a chance that the evidence can and may be thrown away or not even used in the court. There are many pros and cons that the Miranda Right have which some may include the following and may not make everyone happy but that all depends on the side they may be on. Our laws are changing every day of our lives, but one thing is for sure the Miranda Rights are still impacted in it.
Reference:
Miranda Law and Self-Incrimination. (2003). Retrieved from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect19.htm
Pros and Cons of Miranda Rights. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.ask.com › Q&A › Society › Public Safety
What are your Miranda Rights? (2013). Retrieved from http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html
Expanding Civil rights – Landmark Cases, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html, 2012
National Center for Policy Analysis. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st218.pdf
Handcuffing the Cops. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st218.pdf
Michalle Cochrane(Wilborn), Stephanie Cox, Shereka White and Vanetia Riley CJA 364
June 10, 2013 Jonathan Sperling
Rules Miranda vs. Arizona 1966
In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark of a decision to the United States Supreme Court, in which this was passed because it had four out of five agreeing. The Court held both exculpatory and inculpatory statements in which was made in response to interrogation by the person who is in the custody of the police who will be used in a trial only if the prosecution is able to show that the accused was informed of their right to consult with a lawyer before and even during any questioning and have the right against …show more content…
self-incrimination before even being questioned by the law enforcement, and they understand those rights, but still voluntary to waive those right. This has a huge impact on the police in the United States, because of them making the Miranda Rights a part of their routine to be making sure those that are suspects were told of their rights. Our Supreme Court decided the Miranda with three other cases that were consolidated. Vignera v. New York, California v. Stewart and Westover v. United States. “Miranda” warning is the name of a formal warning in which it requires to be given by the law enforcement officers in the United States to those that are criminal suspect in custody prior to them getting questioned, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. The purpose of this is to ensure those that are accused of a crime, and remind them of their rights under the United States Constitution, and to let them know that they can invoke them at any time during the interview.
Miranda v. Arizona is a criminal case that involved the inception of the “Miranda rights”; a statement made by case law from Miranda that is required to be read to all those being placed under arrest. In 1963 a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested on criminal charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. During the interrogation of Miranda, he confessed to all of the charges. The police that interrogated Miranda used tactics encouraging Miranda to confess. Miranda was later convicted on all charges using only the confessions as evidence and was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in state prison. The problem with the behavior of the police, the interrogation and the confessions was that Miranda was not properly informed of his constitutional right to have an attorney present during his interrogation, or furthermore that he was not required to speak to the police at all in regards to the crimes he was being accused of.
Miranda was an uneducated man that suffered from a history of mental illnesses; once Miranda was able to retain counsel he was advised that his confession was obtained unconstitutionally.
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 …show more content…
false.
In the case of Miranda given his mental instability, his lack of education and his fear of the law enforcement officers plus the fact that he was treated unconstitutionally, in 1966 three years after his conviction the Supreme Court decided to rule in the favor of the defendant. Not only did they rule in the favor of Miranda and overturn his conviction they also implemented a policy for all law enforcement agencies to abide by; each and every individual being accused of a crime and placed under arrest for that crime will be read a mandatory statement of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and also informed that they are not required to speak to the police or any other law enforcement officer without an attorney present, this statement is known as the “Miranda rights”.
The 1966 decision in Miranda v.
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
court’s decision on the public and law enforcement is that in spite of the court taking charge in the Miranda rule making favors of what society expects is a major part of how the constitution reacts to what is expected. What Miranda requires is that every individual lost, confused, satisfied or even in the right mind of their actions is that they are always protected no matter what the situation is. With that the court states that law officials are to always follow every aspect of what is expected when it comes to dealing with individuals and what the Miranda rule has abolished. The Court has based these safeguards on a purely pragmatic, cost-benefit assessment. The Court has specifically stated that the Miranda rules rest not on constitutional requirement but rather are a “carefully crafted balance designed to fully protect both the defendant’s and society’s interests.” ("Handcuffing the Cops", 1998). In view of the fact that the Miranda rule has completely changed how things are done in the justice system, society has a way of using that to the advantage of what the court allows and what aspects of the court is given to each individual during such times of needing to actually plead the fifth behind their beliefs after the Miranda rule.
Summary
The Miranda right clearly states, “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he/she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he/she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he/she is indigent an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him/her. The Miranda rights were design to protect suspect from self- incrimination. The right to remain silent is the ultimate pro when it comes to the Miranda rights. This means that a law enforcement official can ask the potential suspect anything and the suspect has the right to “Not Answer.” The right to an attorney presents and if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provide to you. Another pro which, means that the suspect does not have to say anything until his or her attorney is present and if they cannot afford on, the state in which the suspect is being held will provide one free of charge. Anything that a person say can and will be used in a court of law, is consider a pro because it let the suspect know that, “hey, we are not forcing you to talk but if you do, we will use it against you.” The last pro would be if the police did not read a person his or her Miranda rights, the evidence that they have can be suppress in court because the Miranda right are always supposed to be read during an arrest. However, when there are pros to things there are also cons to things. The biggest con in the Miranda rights is that the state will provide a person with a lawyer/attorney however that does not mean that the lawyer will have to be any good, it just means that since the person cannot afford lawyer the state will provide the person one. The state provides public defenders to people cannot afford lawyers, public defenders usually have a lot of cases, they cannot give equal amount of time to each case therefore, the United States lived up to their part which was to provide the person with counsel. If the Miranda rights are not read to the suspect, this could lead to acquittal or some of things that the suspect said could be suppress because it is very important that each accuse person is read their legal rights as it is states in the United States Constitution. The Miranda rights purpose is to make sure the suspect or the accuse person protected from incriminating him or herself. It is the job of the law enforcement officials to make sure that each and every person that they arrest is aware of their rights.
As we all can tell and see the Miranda Rights are not read to someone that is accused of doing a crime when they are arrested then there is a chance that the evidence can and may be thrown away or not even used in the court. There are many pros and cons that the Miranda Right have which some may include the following and may not make everyone happy but that all depends on the side they may be on. Our laws are changing every day of our lives, but one thing is for sure the Miranda Rights are still impacted in it.
Reference:
Miranda Law and Self-Incrimination. (2003). Retrieved from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect19.htm
Pros and Cons of Miranda Rights. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.ask.com › Q&A › Society › Public Safety
What are your Miranda Rights? (2013). Retrieved from http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html
Expanding Civil rights – Landmark Cases, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html, 2012
National Center for Policy Analysis. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st218.pdf
Handcuffing the Cops. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st218.pdf