Miranda Warnings
Miranda v. Arizona “You are going to prison”, is the statement Ernesto Miranda probably heard as he was arrested by police from the comfort of his home, in 1963, without warning or being advised of his Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda, 22 years old, was charged with raping an 18-year-old female. Subsequently, he was brought to a police department station where he was placed into an interrogation room isolated from everyone. After two grueling hours of questioning; Miranda was feeling dazed, confused and exhausted, Miranda felt forced to sign a confession statement given to him by detective claiming that Miranda did so without duress. Further stating, “Ernesto fully comprehended the charges made against him”. A technique not uncommon during
…show more content…
investigations; presenting the question: is this right? Police arrests and interrogations should be governed by a set standard of rules, such as Miranda Rights, which do not violate its citizens’ civil liberties protected by the constitution.
Arrest
The person being arrested reasonably thinks that he/she is not free to depart. Research indicates what constitutes “police custody” as one or more of the following: (“What procedure must police following while making an arrest?,” 2013) The detainee must be placed in handcuffs, placed in a police cruiser, the arrestee is told they are under arrest, they are confronted by law enforcement with guns pointed at you or you are kept at a police station and not allowed to leave. On the other hand, the detective need not use shackles, or place the arrestee in a police squad car and they may ask questions that can elicit an implicating response (Remember: Miranda law insists these are given during an interrogation not an arrest) without encroaching upon your freedoms. The Supreme Court indicated that interrogations are still a perfectly justifiable fact-finding tool, cross-exanimating a suspect without advising the suspect of legal rights before taking the suspect into custody is legal, and volunteered statements are valid.
Interrogation
“The Fifth Amendment is what protects suspects from improper interrogation procedures and from being forced to supply illegally obtained confessions.” (Worrall, 2007, p. 227) Simply put, a criminal has the right, not to tell on themselves. A helpful legal formula to remember concerning Miranda warnings are: (Miranda = Arrest + Questioning). According to police procedures, which vary by jurisdiction, interviews must adhere to some of the following basic premises to be considered legal: The citizens’ civil rights must remain intact, there should be no coercion by use of excessive force or cruelty and Miranda warnings must be given before any questioning and must contain the following statements:
"You have the right to remain silent.
If you give up 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 desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided for you. “(“The Miranda Rule”) Miranda warnings are debatable, but it is necessary for present-day policing, and it assists both the suspect and the police department. In today’s society, many have heard of these rights whether or not they have been arrested by police from many law enforcement television shows like CSI or “How to Get Away with Murder”. These modern day television series depict how important the use of Miranda warnings is for detainees that find themselves on the wrong side of the law. On the other hand, movies based on true stories like The Ruben “Hurricane” Carter show demonstrated how lives could be destroyed when vindictive and manipulating detectives abuse their power. The Miranda Warning helps keep abuses in check; if used correctly, the guilty can receive their due chastisement and it helps prosecutors to be more efficient in trying cases making it very unlikely that the judge presiding over any case would throw out statements made during questioning, creating a balance of sorts in the criminal justice …show more content…
system.
The Debate
Miranda has received negative reviews from some legal sceptics since it has been enacted in 1966, Some legal official have tried to have the Supreme Court’s rulings on Miranda rights abolished, citing concerns that “justice” cannot be served because it hinders an officer’s investigation and evidence process. These arguments; however, carefully debated, has failed to have the Miranda laws annulled for the past 40 years. The solid legal premises carefully constructed within Miranda rights are a well-received precedence for American citizens whom feel victimized by its police departments and wanted reforming guidelines on how interrogations are handled. "Even many conservative critics of the Warren Court, while still adamantly opposed to extending the exclusionary rule to the states, have grudgingly conceded that Miranda was not so bad and seem to have accepted that the reforms of the criminal trial were, by and large, a good idea" (Bradley 37). The Constitution of the United States guaranteed that the accused will be viewed as “innocent until found guilty.” Miranda safeguards this by guaranteeing that citizens’ rights are protected even during the commission of a crime. For example, under Miranda warnings wrongdoers are encouraged to not speak until there is an attorney present, even if they cannot afford one. This ensures the police cannot "coerce" confessions out of suspects. Coerced information may not be admissible in court, and the prosecutor’s case may even be dismissed for lack of acceptable evidence. Several articles that endorse and back-up the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights, including the U.S. Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, Cohens v. Virginia, and many other more recent judicial decisions. By 1993, Miranda rights has gained favorable reviews from critics that originally opposed it. Praise was given by former prosecutors and national policing agencies, asking the Supreme Court to continue permitting Miranda claims in federal habeas corpus actions (Thomas 1). This indicates that Miranda, in its controversial state, has helped mainstream police practices, and it is no longer seen as the problem but a solution. Miranda warnings provide an efficient way for court cases to be assessed with universal guidelines which make sure that no illegal coercion takes place creating a more effectual judicial process. Reading a suspect's rights protects both the law officer and the suspect from wrongful prosecution" (Carrillo). Miranda Today Recently, Miranda has come into use globally, specifically as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. US law agencies, including the FBI, have been conducting investigations oversees, and the question has arisen, is Miranda necessary outside the United States? "In 2001 in United States v. Bin Laden, a federal district court held that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies to non-American citizens interrogated abroad, thus requiring Miranda warnings in this context" (Godsey). While the necessity of Miranda in foreign situations has not totally been proven, it stands to reason that if an international suspect is going to face trial in America, the same statutes should govern their arrest and trial that govern any domestic suspect. Critics of Miranda say it impedes evidence, and ultimately leads to more case dismissals when interviews come into question. However, one 1988 study showed this was simply not the case. "The study also found that 'Eighty-seven percent of the 234 prosecutors surveyed believed that 5 percent or less of their cases were dismissed because of Miranda problems'" (Bradley 43). Critics also believe that Miranda has affected the way the police interrogate and gain information from their prisoners, and because of this, it costs the taxpayers more money each year in court and prison costs. One expert writes,
The Miranda rule complicates law enforcement procedures and results in fewer prosecutions. Dropping it would streamline prosecutions and save millions of dollars in court costs. After Miranda was first adopted, the number of voluntary confessions fell dramatically, as did the rate of convictions and crimes solved. The Miranda rule was intended only as a safeguard for constitutional rights - not as an arrest procedure (Carrillo).
However, the Supreme Court has looked at the law several times since its inception in 1966, and has always upheld the ruling.
It is now such standard police procedure that it is difficult to think it continues to make such a large and costly effect on the US court systems. Just about everyone knows about the Miranda law now, and suspects can waive their Miranda rights if they choose, and they are informed they are waiving their rights if they choose to talk to an interrogator anyway. As one expert notes, Miranda has not really created a new wave of interrogation – suspects will still waive their rights if they think it will help serve them in some way. "Guilty suspects who think they can outsmart police would have talked in the 'old days' and today gladly waive their Miranda rights and talk to the police. Guilty suspects who can be tricked into making damaging statements by the police can also be tricked into waiving their Miranda rights (Thomas 1). Thus, Miranda, while creating controversy, really has not seemed to flood the courts with inadmissible cases, neither has it changed, for the most part, how police go about getting confessions from suspects. Thus, the arguments that Miranda costs the taxpayer more money while allowing suspects to go free simply does not hold water. In addition, in many cases, the Miranda rule helps policing, because it ensures the information the police obtain will hold up in court, and it ensures the rights of the suspect are maintained
at all times. In conclusion, the Miranda Rule is a vital part of today's policing, and, while controversial, it must be allowed to continue. Critics continue to discredit Miranda, and call for its' overturning, but the Supreme Court continues to uphold the decision. In additional, many professional organizations recognize the importance of Miranda both for police departments and the efficiency of the court system, and they call for its continued use and acceptance. The Miranda Rule is an excellent example of a law that creates constant controversy and discussion, but ultimately was created to protect the rights of the individual, and it does its job quite well, while still supporting the criminal justice system. Upon interviewing Criminal Defense Attorney Penny Wymyczak-White, via telephone, she stresses the importance of Miranda to the accused by stating, “Clients that do not take advantage of the Miranda Warnings to remain silent, in the absence of a lawyer when questioned during the interrogation process, by detectives, make it problematic for their legal representative to present a strong argument during trial. Statements (confessions) made by offenders prior to legal counsel’s advice are irreversible and damaging!” Attorney Wymyczak-White further demonstrates this belief with her advertisement on the following page, while taking notice of the amount of times she advises to be quiet and ask for a lawyer.
investigations; presenting the question: is this right? Police arrests and interrogations should be governed by a set standard of rules, such as Miranda Rights, which do not violate its citizens’ civil liberties protected by the constitution.
Arrest
The person being arrested reasonably thinks that he/she is not free to depart. Research indicates what constitutes “police custody” as one or more of the following: (“What procedure must police following while making an arrest?,” 2013) The detainee must be placed in handcuffs, placed in a police cruiser, the arrestee is told they are under arrest, they are confronted by law enforcement with guns pointed at you or you are kept at a police station and not allowed to leave. On the other hand, the detective need not use shackles, or place the arrestee in a police squad car and they may ask questions that can elicit an implicating response (Remember: Miranda law insists these are given during an interrogation not an arrest) without encroaching upon your freedoms. The Supreme Court indicated that interrogations are still a perfectly justifiable fact-finding tool, cross-exanimating a suspect without advising the suspect of legal rights before taking the suspect into custody is legal, and volunteered statements are valid.
Interrogation
“The Fifth Amendment is what protects suspects from improper interrogation procedures and from being forced to supply illegally obtained confessions.” (Worrall, 2007, p. 227) Simply put, a criminal has the right, not to tell on themselves. A helpful legal formula to remember concerning Miranda warnings are: (Miranda = Arrest + Questioning). According to police procedures, which vary by jurisdiction, interviews must adhere to some of the following basic premises to be considered legal: The citizens’ civil rights must remain intact, there should be no coercion by use of excessive force or cruelty and Miranda warnings must be given before any questioning and must contain the following statements:
"You have the right to remain silent.
If you give up 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 desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided for you. “(“The Miranda Rule”) Miranda warnings are debatable, but it is necessary for present-day policing, and it assists both the suspect and the police department. In today’s society, many have heard of these rights whether or not they have been arrested by police from many law enforcement television shows like CSI or “How to Get Away with Murder”. These modern day television series depict how important the use of Miranda warnings is for detainees that find themselves on the wrong side of the law. On the other hand, movies based on true stories like The Ruben “Hurricane” Carter show demonstrated how lives could be destroyed when vindictive and manipulating detectives abuse their power. The Miranda Warning helps keep abuses in check; if used correctly, the guilty can receive their due chastisement and it helps prosecutors to be more efficient in trying cases making it very unlikely that the judge presiding over any case would throw out statements made during questioning, creating a balance of sorts in the criminal justice …show more content…
system.
The Debate
Miranda has received negative reviews from some legal sceptics since it has been enacted in 1966, Some legal official have tried to have the Supreme Court’s rulings on Miranda rights abolished, citing concerns that “justice” cannot be served because it hinders an officer’s investigation and evidence process. These arguments; however, carefully debated, has failed to have the Miranda laws annulled for the past 40 years. The solid legal premises carefully constructed within Miranda rights are a well-received precedence for American citizens whom feel victimized by its police departments and wanted reforming guidelines on how interrogations are handled. "Even many conservative critics of the Warren Court, while still adamantly opposed to extending the exclusionary rule to the states, have grudgingly conceded that Miranda was not so bad and seem to have accepted that the reforms of the criminal trial were, by and large, a good idea" (Bradley 37). The Constitution of the United States guaranteed that the accused will be viewed as “innocent until found guilty.” Miranda safeguards this by guaranteeing that citizens’ rights are protected even during the commission of a crime. For example, under Miranda warnings wrongdoers are encouraged to not speak until there is an attorney present, even if they cannot afford one. This ensures the police cannot "coerce" confessions out of suspects. Coerced information may not be admissible in court, and the prosecutor’s case may even be dismissed for lack of acceptable evidence. Several articles that endorse and back-up the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights, including the U.S. Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, Cohens v. Virginia, and many other more recent judicial decisions. By 1993, Miranda rights has gained favorable reviews from critics that originally opposed it. Praise was given by former prosecutors and national policing agencies, asking the Supreme Court to continue permitting Miranda claims in federal habeas corpus actions (Thomas 1). This indicates that Miranda, in its controversial state, has helped mainstream police practices, and it is no longer seen as the problem but a solution. Miranda warnings provide an efficient way for court cases to be assessed with universal guidelines which make sure that no illegal coercion takes place creating a more effectual judicial process. Reading a suspect's rights protects both the law officer and the suspect from wrongful prosecution" (Carrillo). Miranda Today Recently, Miranda has come into use globally, specifically as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. US law agencies, including the FBI, have been conducting investigations oversees, and the question has arisen, is Miranda necessary outside the United States? "In 2001 in United States v. Bin Laden, a federal district court held that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies to non-American citizens interrogated abroad, thus requiring Miranda warnings in this context" (Godsey). While the necessity of Miranda in foreign situations has not totally been proven, it stands to reason that if an international suspect is going to face trial in America, the same statutes should govern their arrest and trial that govern any domestic suspect. Critics of Miranda say it impedes evidence, and ultimately leads to more case dismissals when interviews come into question. However, one 1988 study showed this was simply not the case. "The study also found that 'Eighty-seven percent of the 234 prosecutors surveyed believed that 5 percent or less of their cases were dismissed because of Miranda problems'" (Bradley 43). Critics also believe that Miranda has affected the way the police interrogate and gain information from their prisoners, and because of this, it costs the taxpayers more money each year in court and prison costs. One expert writes,
The Miranda rule complicates law enforcement procedures and results in fewer prosecutions. Dropping it would streamline prosecutions and save millions of dollars in court costs. After Miranda was first adopted, the number of voluntary confessions fell dramatically, as did the rate of convictions and crimes solved. The Miranda rule was intended only as a safeguard for constitutional rights - not as an arrest procedure (Carrillo).
However, the Supreme Court has looked at the law several times since its inception in 1966, and has always upheld the ruling.
It is now such standard police procedure that it is difficult to think it continues to make such a large and costly effect on the US court systems. Just about everyone knows about the Miranda law now, and suspects can waive their Miranda rights if they choose, and they are informed they are waiving their rights if they choose to talk to an interrogator anyway. As one expert notes, Miranda has not really created a new wave of interrogation – suspects will still waive their rights if they think it will help serve them in some way. "Guilty suspects who think they can outsmart police would have talked in the 'old days' and today gladly waive their Miranda rights and talk to the police. Guilty suspects who can be tricked into making damaging statements by the police can also be tricked into waiving their Miranda rights (Thomas 1). Thus, Miranda, while creating controversy, really has not seemed to flood the courts with inadmissible cases, neither has it changed, for the most part, how police go about getting confessions from suspects. Thus, the arguments that Miranda costs the taxpayer more money while allowing suspects to go free simply does not hold water. In addition, in many cases, the Miranda rule helps policing, because it ensures the information the police obtain will hold up in court, and it ensures the rights of the suspect are maintained
at all times. In conclusion, the Miranda Rule is a vital part of today's policing, and, while controversial, it must be allowed to continue. Critics continue to discredit Miranda, and call for its' overturning, but the Supreme Court continues to uphold the decision. In additional, many professional organizations recognize the importance of Miranda both for police departments and the efficiency of the court system, and they call for its continued use and acceptance. The Miranda Rule is an excellent example of a law that creates constant controversy and discussion, but ultimately was created to protect the rights of the individual, and it does its job quite well, while still supporting the criminal justice system. Upon interviewing Criminal Defense Attorney Penny Wymyczak-White, via telephone, she stresses the importance of Miranda to the accused by stating, “Clients that do not take advantage of the Miranda Warnings to remain silent, in the absence of a lawyer when questioned during the interrogation process, by detectives, make it problematic for their legal representative to present a strong argument during trial. Statements (confessions) made by offenders prior to legal counsel’s advice are irreversible and damaging!” Attorney Wymyczak-White further demonstrates this belief with her advertisement on the following page, while taking notice of the amount of times she advises to be quiet and ask for a lawyer.