Preview

Miranda Warning Pros And Cons

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
256 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Miranda Warning Pros And Cons
The Miranda warning is a statement that informs individuals of their Fifth Amendment rights. It is needed anytime custodial interrogation takes place or when a person has been taken into custody or has otherwise been deprived of freedom. However, the Supreme Court has said that Miranda warnings are not constitutionally guaranteed, but rather they exist to aid in the protection of Fifth Amendment rights. So essentially, the purpose of Miranda warnings are only to decide on the admissibility of evidence in a court of law.
Improvements to the Miranda warning could be made through clarifying the statement itself, so that the ideas and concepts addressed would be easier to grasp for the general population. For example, a person’s right to silence
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Modern Law: The Miranda V. Arizona Case
    • 140 Words
    • 1 Page

    Modern Law: The Miranda V. Arizona Case

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona
    • 326 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study
    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study

    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
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study
    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    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
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study
    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    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
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper
    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis
    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    John Adams Supreme Court Case
    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages

    John Adams Supreme Court Case

    Miranda never knew he did not have to speak with the police was interrogated and confessed and was sentenced to jail. Later an attorney looked over the case and requested Judicial Review Claiming that Ernesto’s rights has been violated. In 1966 The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s Conviction, and ruled that if a person is going to be taken in as a suspect they must be informed that they do have a right to and attorney. The suspect also has to be informed that the do not have to speak. The supreme court also ruled that if the suspect is not informed of these right the evidence obtained before hand can not be used in court. These rights are now known as the Miranda rights.…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    Attenuation Doctrine: Fiscal Investigatory Case
    • 633 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Attenuation Doctrine: Fiscal Investigatory Case

    EVEN IF THIS COURT FINDS THAT THE INITIAL INVESTIGATORY QUESTION NEEDED MIRANDA WARNINGS, THE ATTENUATION DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT AT THE POLICE STATION WHERE HE WAS ADVISED OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS.…

    • 633 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay
    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona
    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda," or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview.…

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    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
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    The Ethicality Of Miranda's Criminal Interrogation
    • 1028 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Ethicality Of Miranda's Criminal Interrogation

    Attorney Moore’s argument made no difference at the time because Miranda was found guilty of robbery and rape (11). Miranda was considered by almost parties involved to be guilty. The question that was beginning to be asked was when can “suspects” protect themselves with their constitutional rights? These thoughts were still rumbling around in the nation when another trial happened that raised the volume of those rumblings.…

    • 1028 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona
    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    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.…

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Cjad
    • 624 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Cjad

    Was the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, mandating specific warnings to persons who are questioned while in custody, required by the Constitution?…

    • 624 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More

Related Topics