Miranda Warnings

50 years ago, the Warren Court ruled over the case now known as Miranda v Arizona. While the case was happening, it seemed like another case that was not going to impact anything or anyone, but when Miranda v Arizona concluded, the Warren Court ruled, “that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination” or otherwise known as Miranda Rights. Now looking back on the past, Miranda v Arizona has proved to be one of the most important, if not the most important case in United States history.
Although the Warren Court and any Court following did not specify how Miranda Warnings should be read, most Law Enforcement Agencies adopted a standardized from of the warning, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” In a Court of Law, Miranda Warnings are not considered legally issued until the person being read the warning agrees that he or she understands the Miranda rights.
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,
As mentioned before, Prosecutors only need a confession to prosecute, so informing a person of their right to remain silent and their right to an Attorney makes Law Enforcement Officials need more than a confession. Needing more than confession keeps the suspect innocent until the police or other Law Enforcement Agencies find something to prove them