The Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona is landmark case that has changed history and the manner of how defendants are notified of their rights before relinquishing any information about a crime. Miranda was implemented so no someone else could suffer for a crime and not become aware of their rights. Defendants should be informed of the charges and their rights before they are arrested for any alleged crime. If law enforcement officials fail to properly notify the accused of their rights the chances of them paying the price of crime could possibly be extremely slim to none. Or the defendant may face charges for a crime that he or she did not commit. It could also be in vain if that was information gather was done in an improper manner. I understand law enforcement
…show more content…
official’s goal is to solve a case but the proper guidelines, procedures and regulations should be followed. The interrogation process is significantly important because it can determine the person involvement with the alleged crime and whether or not the defendant rights have been violated which could possible allow them to walk free from committing a crime. In this paper I will explain the facts, arguments and the impact of this significant case of Miranda v Arizona. Ernesto Miranda is Mexican immigrant who resided in Phoenix Arizona.
Ernesto did not complete the ninth grade and he had a history of mental instability. He also had a prior record which means he was not a stranger to the criminal justice system. In this case Miranda vs. Arizona the facts are Miranda was arrested and taken into custody and was identified in line-up by a witness accusing him of kidnapping and raping a woman. He was interrogated by two officers for two hours which lead in to a written and signed confession about the crime. No counsel was present nor was one offered during the interrogation phase. The only concrete evidence the prosecutor relied on was the falsified confession which is also known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” that was taped by the …show more content…
officers.
But at the trial these confessions were presented to the jury for review to make a decision about the outcome of the facts pertaining to the case. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape which ended in being sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment on each count. He had to serve his time concurrently. Miranda decided to appeal his case after discovering he wasn’t notified of rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. The Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in the confession initially. The argument for Miranda was that the police clearly violated Miranda’s 5th amendment right which states he can remain silent and not willingly volunteer any information without self-incriminating himself. They also failed to notify him of the right of the 6th amendment which clearly states he has a right to a legal counsel. I believe if legal counsel was offered or given to Ernesto prior to the trial the outcome may have turned out differently. The officer’s presume as they knew Miranda had already known his rights due to past criminal arrest and record. Which the officers may have felt as though the need to reiterate the Miranda warnings did not serve a purpose? In my opinion the purpose for the Miranda is to inform individuals of their rights regardless of their prior history of arrest. His confession was illegally obtained and it should have be thrown out once it was discovered that the investigation was completed improperly. His conviction was indeed faulty and he did deserve a new and fair trial. In my opinion if legal counsel was not offered prior to the case going to trial, the investigation process and outcome could have been different. I believe a new investigation should have been completed by another police agency outside of Arizona since they did not follow proper protocol in this case. I believe if another agency would have completed the case then maybe new evidence would have been discovered. All of the evidence that was discovered and gather should have been re-examined to make sure Ernesto confession was not coerced or forced to close out the case. Both of the 5th and 6th amendments are equally important because they could have determine Ernesto’s proper incarceration or freedom. I also feel like since law enforcement officials did not follow the proper procedures, someone on the police force should have faced some form of punishment as well. Mistakes in this case that were made could cause a person to lose their freedom falsely forever. Accountability should have been enforced from the director of the police department down to the two officers who arrested and interviewed Ernesto. If Miranda’s case did not have profound evidence against him that he committed the crime then this gigantic mistake would have caused him his life.
The argument for Arizona was that Ernesto was no stranger to police procedures. He negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding with the charges he was facing. He also willingly signed the confession. The prosecution was proper, and his conviction was based upon Arizona laws and his imprisonment was viewed as just. The Supreme Court should uphold his conviction and not further cripple the work of police officers. In my opinion since it was discovered that there were a lot of loopholes, mistakes, and intention to neglect the rights of the accused in this case it should have thrown out until new evidence was discovered. Regardless of Ernesto not being a stranger to the procedures if this man dealt with mental issues assumptions of him remembering the process should not have been decided. Ernesto illness itself should have changed the way the interrogation process was completed. In my opinion some sort of psychiatric doctor should questioned him to clear before a decision was made to go to trial. Although he signed a confession I believed the severity of the terms and what charges he agreed upon was not explained to him thoroughly.
The impact of the case occurred when the Supreme Court agreed with the appeal of Miranda in favor to 5-4.
This decision gave rise to what has become known as the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warnings are the rights a defendant have once they are arrested for a crime or during the interrogation process. Certain jurisdictions have their own regulations as to the precise warning given to a person interrogated in police custody. The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspect, prior to police questioning must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. This law basically mean that any person arrested and taken in police custody must be thoroughly explained and informed of their right of the 5th and 6th amendment before a confession is orally spoken, and written.
This case was also impacted because the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and a self-incrimination. The police duties were to give these warnings compelled by the Constitutions Fifth Amendment “which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse” to be a witness against himself”, and Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an
attorney.
The impact falls extremely heavy on law enforcement on how well they perform their tactics on such cases. The reason why this effects them is because the decisions are made to curtail police misconduct in securing confessions. Two principles are recognized obtaining confessions from guilty suspects is a police practice that should be encouraged. The second is how police obtain the confession is more important that whether a guilty perpetrator is convicted. (Gary Beatty)
In conclusion Miranda v Arizona is memorable case not only for Ernesto but for law enforcement as well because authorities are no longer able to get away with not explaining to all defendants thoroughly about their rights they are entitled to know. It is the law enforcement role and duty to uphold the law and not break it. If laws are broken by the people who enforce them it rather difficult for society to listen and abide by the rules and regulations they are attempting to enforce upon people. No law enforcement official should view themselves as if they are above the law. Regardless to their role, job, or position they play in the criminal justice system, laws are implemented towards everyone to follow no one is exempt. I personally feel as though defendants need to make themselves aware of their rights so loopholes such as this case will not repeat itself. If defendants educate themselves about their rights they tend to force law enforcement hands to complete their task properly and in a timely manner. I also believe that law enforcement officials should continuously inform defendants of their rights because they gave an oath to uphold the law. If people began to realize law enforcement officials are using the law against people then the world will eventually become a senseless place live in.
official’s goal is to solve a case but the proper guidelines, procedures and regulations should be followed. The interrogation process is significantly important because it can determine the person involvement with the alleged crime and whether or not the defendant rights have been violated which could possible allow them to walk free from committing a crime. In this paper I will explain the facts, arguments and the impact of this significant case of Miranda v Arizona. Ernesto Miranda is Mexican immigrant who resided in Phoenix Arizona.
Ernesto did not complete the ninth grade and he had a history of mental instability. He also had a prior record which means he was not a stranger to the criminal justice system. In this case Miranda vs. Arizona the facts are Miranda was arrested and taken into custody and was identified in line-up by a witness accusing him of kidnapping and raping a woman. He was interrogated by two officers for two hours which lead in to a written and signed confession about the crime. No counsel was present nor was one offered during the interrogation phase. The only concrete evidence the prosecutor relied on was the falsified confession which is also known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” that was taped by the …show more content…
officers.
But at the trial these confessions were presented to the jury for review to make a decision about the outcome of the facts pertaining to the case. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape which ended in being sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment on each count. He had to serve his time concurrently. Miranda decided to appeal his case after discovering he wasn’t notified of rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. The Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in the confession initially. The argument for Miranda was that the police clearly violated Miranda’s 5th amendment right which states he can remain silent and not willingly volunteer any information without self-incriminating himself. They also failed to notify him of the right of the 6th amendment which clearly states he has a right to a legal counsel. I believe if legal counsel was offered or given to Ernesto prior to the trial the outcome may have turned out differently. The officer’s presume as they knew Miranda had already known his rights due to past criminal arrest and record. Which the officers may have felt as though the need to reiterate the Miranda warnings did not serve a purpose? In my opinion the purpose for the Miranda is to inform individuals of their rights regardless of their prior history of arrest. His confession was illegally obtained and it should have be thrown out once it was discovered that the investigation was completed improperly. His conviction was indeed faulty and he did deserve a new and fair trial. In my opinion if legal counsel was not offered prior to the case going to trial, the investigation process and outcome could have been different. I believe a new investigation should have been completed by another police agency outside of Arizona since they did not follow proper protocol in this case. I believe if another agency would have completed the case then maybe new evidence would have been discovered. All of the evidence that was discovered and gather should have been re-examined to make sure Ernesto confession was not coerced or forced to close out the case. Both of the 5th and 6th amendments are equally important because they could have determine Ernesto’s proper incarceration or freedom. I also feel like since law enforcement officials did not follow the proper procedures, someone on the police force should have faced some form of punishment as well. Mistakes in this case that were made could cause a person to lose their freedom falsely forever. Accountability should have been enforced from the director of the police department down to the two officers who arrested and interviewed Ernesto. If Miranda’s case did not have profound evidence against him that he committed the crime then this gigantic mistake would have caused him his life.
The argument for Arizona was that Ernesto was no stranger to police procedures. He negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding with the charges he was facing. He also willingly signed the confession. The prosecution was proper, and his conviction was based upon Arizona laws and his imprisonment was viewed as just. The Supreme Court should uphold his conviction and not further cripple the work of police officers. In my opinion since it was discovered that there were a lot of loopholes, mistakes, and intention to neglect the rights of the accused in this case it should have thrown out until new evidence was discovered. Regardless of Ernesto not being a stranger to the procedures if this man dealt with mental issues assumptions of him remembering the process should not have been decided. Ernesto illness itself should have changed the way the interrogation process was completed. In my opinion some sort of psychiatric doctor should questioned him to clear before a decision was made to go to trial. Although he signed a confession I believed the severity of the terms and what charges he agreed upon was not explained to him thoroughly.
The impact of the case occurred when the Supreme Court agreed with the appeal of Miranda in favor to 5-4.
This decision gave rise to what has become known as the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warnings are the rights a defendant have once they are arrested for a crime or during the interrogation process. Certain jurisdictions have their own regulations as to the precise warning given to a person interrogated in police custody. The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspect, prior to police questioning must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. This law basically mean that any person arrested and taken in police custody must be thoroughly explained and informed of their right of the 5th and 6th amendment before a confession is orally spoken, and written.
This case was also impacted because the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and a self-incrimination. The police duties were to give these warnings compelled by the Constitutions Fifth Amendment “which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse” to be a witness against himself”, and Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an
attorney.
The impact falls extremely heavy on law enforcement on how well they perform their tactics on such cases. The reason why this effects them is because the decisions are made to curtail police misconduct in securing confessions. Two principles are recognized obtaining confessions from guilty suspects is a police practice that should be encouraged. The second is how police obtain the confession is more important that whether a guilty perpetrator is convicted. (Gary Beatty)
In conclusion Miranda v Arizona is memorable case not only for Ernesto but for law enforcement as well because authorities are no longer able to get away with not explaining to all defendants thoroughly about their rights they are entitled to know. It is the law enforcement role and duty to uphold the law and not break it. If laws are broken by the people who enforce them it rather difficult for society to listen and abide by the rules and regulations they are attempting to enforce upon people. No law enforcement official should view themselves as if they are above the law. Regardless to their role, job, or position they play in the criminal justice system, laws are implemented towards everyone to follow no one is exempt. I personally feel as though defendants need to make themselves aware of their rights so loopholes such as this case will not repeat itself. If defendants educate themselves about their rights they tend to force law enforcement hands to complete their task properly and in a timely manner. I also believe that law enforcement officials should continuously inform defendants of their rights because they gave an oath to uphold the law. If people began to realize law enforcement officials are using the law against people then the world will eventually become a senseless place live in.