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
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