Preview

Why Is Miranda Rights Necessary

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1559 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why Is Miranda Rights Necessary
When an individual gets arrested, one of the first things that occurs is the officer will read the individual his/her Miranda Rights. These rights have been portrayed in movies for many decades, accurately and inaccurately. The most common phrases that people think about when it comes to Miranda Rights are: you have the right to remain silent and you have the right to an attorney. Where did these rights originate from though, what is the purpose of them and are they really necessary? This paper will look at the origin of Miranda Rights and why they are necessary through the use of court cases. Before these rights were known as the Miranda Rights, they stem from the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, …show more content…
It is necessary because if the Rule is not followed it can lead to self-incrimination, which is against the Fifth Amendment and because it can lead to a false confession when one does not know their rights. For example, in Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the defendant committed a crime and was arrested, but before the interrogation occurred she was not aware of her rights. She was questioned for about forty minutes in which she confessed and then the officer came back and read her rights and give her a signed waiver. The officer then began questioning again in order to get her to repeat the information. Seibert moved to suppress both her statements from before and after she was given her rights, but the judge only suppressed the one that occurred before, which led to a murder conviction. The Supreme Court found that since she was not giving her rights before the questioning began, all of her statements from before and after were inadmissible (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). This case shows that the Miranda Rule is necessary because Seibert was not aware of her rights, which led to a self-incriminating confession. Also, since she was not aware of her rights, the confession should not be viewed as voluntary because she did not have the freedom to fully make the choice about what she could or should say or not say. Even though the rights were given eventually, that still does not give the individual a full comprehension of his/her rights because they have already been questioned without a choice. If an individual is not aware of his/her rights, then it leads to self-incrimination or even a false

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of Miranda v. Arizona set a precedence on how future suspects would be interrogated. It makes complete sense to advise a person that is being interrogated that he or she has a right to remain silent during interrogation and that he or she has the right to have counsel present during an interrogation. It's also important that the suspect be fully aware and full understand his or her rights before the interrogation begins. -WRITTEN AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION-METHODS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT By Harvey Wallace and Cliff Roberson(CHAPTER 9 PAGE 136)…

    • 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 the Miranda vs Arizona case Miranda established that the police are required to inform arrested persons that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. The case involved a claim by the plaintiff that the state of Arizona, by obtaining a confession from him without having informed him of his right to have a lawyer present, had violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment regarding self incrimination. Miranda was arrested for kidnap and rape and was interrogated for a long period of time. This interrogation resulted in a signed confession. At court Miranda lawyer argued that the confession was obtained from a person who does not understand their rights. The court agreed that a person should be informed of their rights and understand them before the police…

    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better 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 never knew he did not have to speak with the police was interrogated and confessed and was sentenced to jail. Later an attorney looked over the case and requested Judicial Review Claiming that Ernesto’s rights has been violated. In 1966 The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s Conviction, and ruled that if a person is going to be taken in as a suspect they must be informed that they do have a right to and attorney. The suspect also has to be informed that the do not have to speak. The supreme court also ruled that if the suspect is not informed of these right the evidence obtained before hand can not be used in court. These rights are now known as the Miranda rights.…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court consolidated four separate court cases with issues concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. All the defendants in each of these occurrences offered incriminating evidence during interrogations from police and were not notified prior to the interrogations of their rights granted to them under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Miranda was arrested and taken into custody to a police station where he was identified by the witness. He was questioned for 2 hours by officers without being advised of his right to counsel and then signed a statement that said that his confession was voluntary. ISSUE: Whether the government is required to notify the detained individuals of their constitutional rights granted by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination prior to the individuals being interrogated by the authorities and assistance of counsel and give a voluntary waiver of these rights as a necessary precondition to police questioning and the giving of a…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, 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 against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's 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.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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 vs. Arizona

    • 454 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Creation of the Miranda rights has changed the relationship between citizen state and police suspects. Citizens now have the right to be informed and assurance that they will be protected by institutional power. Suspects can now anybody that they had nothing to with it. The Miranda warnings are rights that are not protected by the Constitution. They are simply a precaution to guarantee protection against self –incrimination. Without the Miranda rights, the treatment of criminals would not be fair.…

    • 454 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Without these rights being read to the suspect, any confession given to an interrogator or police man cannot be used. The name of these rights comes from a man named Ernest Miranda. On November 27, 1962, a woman…

    • 1028 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    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.…

    • 1525 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Decision Case

    • 275 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Miranda decision emerges from a case back in 1966 which deals with the rights of the accused, mainly with the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate one’s self(Leo,1996).In this case Ernest Miranda,, a Mexican-American, was facing the state of Arizona for raping and kidnapping an eighteen year old woman.The case led to the Miranda warning which requires the officer to notify a suspect of his rights,i.e. you have the right to remain silent,and the right to speak to an attorney(Leo,1996). That the questions answered by Miranda during his interrogation must have been answered with the defendant’s knowledge of his rights.This made a big impact in the police force, that a testimony is only legitimate if the proper steps are carried out(Leo,1996).…

    • 275 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Warnings

    • 632 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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.…

    • 632 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics