Preview

Research Paper On Miranda Rights

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
504 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Research Paper On Miranda Rights
Do you think the Miranda rights are a good thing? The Miranda Rights: “You have the right to remain silent and not to talk about anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney we will provide 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?” Many countries don't have rights like the rights we have. Some countries have rights but not as good. It is important for people who are being questioned to know their Miranda rights. People have the right to remain silent when being questioned by the police. People have the right to an attorney when they are being questioned by the police. The Miranda rights are more than just words on paper. …show more content…
That is a reason because he or she might make himself appear guilty, that is given to us by the fifth amendment in the United States Constitution. There is countries where criminal get away because they don't have the right to remain silent and suspects dig himself a deeper hole. That is the reason suspects have the right to remain silent. The history of the Miranda Rights are in 1966, the Supreme Court in the United States had a case. Ernesto Miranda was being accused of two crimes which were kidnapping and rape this man was questioned by the police for two hours. Then he confessed to the crimes but when he was in court they could not use any of the evidence they found against him.
Suspects have the right to an attorney when the police are questioning them. The sixth amendment states that we have the right to an attorney even if we don't have one they will provide. Many times the attorney will tell us not to talk. That is why we should be glad we have the right to an attorney because places in the world have rights but they say if you don't have an attorney you don't get

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    The case of Escobedo V. Illinois set the precedent for the sixth amendment, which is the right to a counsel. It guaranteed that if a person is arrested then they must be informed of their legal rights, which gives them the right to remain silent. When Danny Escobedo was arrested in connection for the shooting of one of his relatives he received an 18-hour interrogation and was later released for not making any self-incriminating statements. Another suspect was later arrested and told police that Escobedo had committed the murder. He was then once again arrested and this time interrogated through the entire night. His attorney had been repeatedly denied permission to talk to his client. Escobedo as well had repeatedly asked to see his lawyer…

    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Summary

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages

    There were four different cases that were addressed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. These cases involve custodial interrogations and in each of these cases, the defendant was cut off from the outside world while they were being interrogated in a room by the police officers, detectives, as well as prosecuting attorneys. In the four cases, not even one of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights during the interrogation process. Furthermore, the questioning done in all the cases elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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
  • Good Essays

    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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    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…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    In today’s society almost all policemen never forget to read the person under arrest their rights because they know about the Miranda vs Arizona case. I believe that they have put more pressure on the police to say the rights because its a matter of the criminal getting let go because they forgot to read them even if the person already knows their rights. If in case that that does happen I still would not let the criminal go if the case was for something bad or something that would harm…

    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Warning: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages

    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
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Miranda rights in some cases do ensure justice and at times they don’t. They can unsure justice if they were read to the suspect but if not all the evidence they have collected could go out the window. But if they do read your rights they can continue with their investigation and them anything they find can be used against you.…

    • 235 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Criminal law by nature is interesting to most people. However, there are many citizens that misinterpret what their rights are in a court of law. For instance, the Fifth amendment is a person’s right to not self-incriminate. Defendants typically do not address the court directly. They do so through they attorney. Attorneys are “responsible for advising their clients of their right to testify, whether or not it is wise to do so, as ell as the strategic implications of that decision” (Stock, 2015, p. 712). Just because a defendant does not testify on their own behalf, should not presume guilt. The sixth amendment stipulates that a defendant has the right to an attorney and to a jury trial. This is the premise where miranda rights come into play.…

    • 639 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The right was expanded with the 5th, 6th and 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” as Albert W. Alschuler says in his article “Jury Trial”. People get accused of things on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean they go straight to jail just because they got accused of doing something they don't admit to. That is why everyone relies on this VI Amendment. In a trial by jury there are two defendants one accused guilty and one is the person who was being harassed at the scene. Once someone gets accused of stealing, or being at a scene at the wrong time then they go to the judge and say that they want to plead either guilty or not guilty.…

    • 900 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays