Why Are Miranda Laws Important

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used for or against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney now or at any time during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you, without cost, by the courts” (“Miranda v. Arizona.” West n.p.).
There are several reasons why the Miranda laws are necessary in the United States. First, most people who would be interrogated by police would not necessarily be aware of their rights unless they are told what they are. The goal of the police would be to gather information and obtain an arrest. Second, each state could have their own criminal procedures and, of course, constitutional laws were in place at the federal level which
could be confusing for the suspect being questioned. Third, in some cases, the police could have incentives to raise the number of cases where officers with more cleared cases were honored and got advanced (“Miranda v Arizona.” West 302). “[Miranda vs Arizona] was the Court’s attempt to balance the rights of a person accused of a crime with the rights of society to prosecute those who commit criminal acts” (“Miranda v Arizona.” West 256). The Miranda Laws keep people in police custody safe from acting as a witness against themselves during interrogation. Without the Miranda laws, people like Esterno Miranda would continue to disclose important information that could be the evidence used to determine whether they are guilty or innocent.
A confession is an extremely important piece of evidence when it comes to a criminal court case. In the case of Esterno Miranda, the police taking him into custody did not make him aware of his rights (“Miranda v Arizona 1966.” 324). Esterno Miranda was born in 1940 and lived in Arizona. Miranda had a history of crime, as he started stealing cars after he dropped out of school in 8th grade (Van Meter 16). He later was charged with the kidnapping and rape of Lois Ann and taken into the custody of the police.
“Miranda was given a lawyer, appointed by the court, to represent him because he did not have enough money to hire his own attorney. His lawyer, Alvin Moore, studied the evidence against Miranda. The case against him was very strong, with the most damaging evidence being his confession to the crime. Moore found the events surrounding the statement troubling. Convinced it had been obtained improperly, he intended to ask the court suppress this evidence and not permit his admission of guilt to come into evidence and be heard by the jury” (“Miranda v Arizona 1966.” 325).
Miranda confessed to the crime he had committed, but the courts could not use his confession against him because he wasn't told his rights prior to questioning (“Miranda v Arizona 1966.” 324). After his case was reversed, the courts decided to enforce laws that ensured the rights and safety of the suspected criminals, and also ensured that if the criminal did confess to the crime after being read his rights, that the judge and jury could use that evidence against him in court.
In 1966, the United States Supreme Court made the decision to enforce the Miranda laws because crucial and important pieces of evidence were being lost.
Lois Ann (the victim of the rape and kidnapping committed by Esterno Miranda) suffered from a learning disability (at the age of 18 she had the intelligence level of a 13 year old) which made it a lot harder for the courts to verify whether or not her evidence was reliable. “Although she claimed to have been tied by the hands and ankles, there were no rope marks or burns” (Van Meter 14). Because of her disability, a lot of the evidence for this case was given by Lois Ann’s sister, Sarah (Van Meter 14). In this situation, Miranda’s confession was crucial for the outcome of the case because of the lack of reliable evidence on Lois Ann’s
side.
After Esterno Miranda was not told his constitutional rights and his confession could not be used against him in court, his case was reversed. If he had been read his rights, his case would not have been reversed and Miranda would have been convicted ("Miranda v. Arizona." American n.p.). Esterno Miranda was set free because his confession couldn’t be used in the court case. Four months after he was set free, he was stabbed to death in a bar fight. The accomplice of his attacker was read the Miranda Rights when he was taken into custody. This is an example of how the Miranda Rights changed the way police investigations occurred (“Miranda v Arizona 1966.” 328).
The Miranda laws are still in effect to this day.
The laws are commonly heard in movie scenes consisting of suspected criminals being taken to questioning (“Miranda v Arizona 1966.” 328). For most police officers, reciting the miranda rights are a part of their everyday life. Miranda’s killer was never arrested because he remained silent after he was told he was allowed to do so, and there wasn't enough evidence gathered to use against him in the court of law. When people are given the right to remain silent, some will do so. On the other hand, some people will answer questions being asked of them even if they don't have to. (“Miranda, Ernst.”
153)
Only a handful of incidents having to do with American Criminal Law have transformed that way America deals with criminal court cases more than that of the Miranda vs. Arizona criminal court case. Since the victim, Lois Ann, had learning disabilities and couldn't provide much of the needed evidence, Esterno Miranda’s confession to the kidnapping and rape of Lois Ann were extremely crucial to the court case. The troubles with the evidence backing this case caught America’s attention and triggered a change in the way we make people sure of their constitutional rights prior to their questioning. Even after all the time that has passed, the Miranda vs. Arizona case is still a recurring issue with the American Criminal Laws. The Law is still in effect and has “withstood the test of time” (“Miranda v Arizona.” West 256).