Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

In the Supreme Court, case Miranda v. Arizona involved an individual by the name of Ernesto Miranda and the state of Arizona. Ernesto Miranda who was accused of kidnapping and raping women was arrested by police and questioned for about two hours until policed obtain a written statement confession to the crimes (Miranda v. Arizona). In trial, the police officers admitted they did not notifying Miranda of his right to have an attorney present when being questioned about the chargers; however, Miranda was convicted by the Arizona state court and sentenced to prison. Miranda’s attorney appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Arizona, but the court upheld the state’s decision stating that “Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel” (Miranda v. Arizona).
The petitioner’s (Miranda)
attorney argued that Miranda’s written confession should have not been placed into evidence as he was not advised of his rights to remain silent and his right to have an attorney present when being questioned. The petitioner’s attorney also argued that Miranda who had a low education level with emotional illness was incapable of knowing his legal rights without being advised of his rights. (Miranda v. Arizona). The respondent’s (Arizona) attorney argued despite Miranda’s education level and emotional illness he was able to write his written confession letter without the police influence. The respondent also argued that Miranda was advised of his right to remain silent before signing his written confession letter (Miranda v. Arizona).
In the Miranda case, five out of the nine Supreme Court judges rules in favor of Miranda.
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
law.