To read or not to read: The Miranda Warning
Kaplan University- Council Bluffs, IA
CJ 101 Introduction to Criminal Justice
Caption Robert L. Miller
The Miranda warning as prescribed by the landmark ruling Miranda V. Arizona is designed to do at least two things. One to ensure the rights of those who are held in custody from incriminating themselves per the fifth amendment of the United States without any forceful or undue treatment and to safeguard the process of justice. Justice has been sacrificed several times because of how it was carried out. The Miranda warning was instituted that justice would be served on all fronts both by way of the law and for those who are a target of the law. Consider the responses below.
Officer Susan Thompson was required to read David Phillips the Miranda Warning when she arrested Him on the Burglary warrant even though she did not interrogate Him about anything while he was in her custody. It is the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States that any situation where an individuals free choice can be influenced by the holding of custody, the Miranda warning should be given to insure the rights of the Fifth Amendment can be invoked and understood by the one who is in custody. Although she did not question the suspect, the suspect could have said anything that would have incriminated him in the offence he was being charged and held for. It so, what was said would not be admissible.
Detective Brum was required to read the Miranda warning when she interrogated David Phillips at the county jail. The reason why it was required is that if a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect’s answers as evidence at trial. If Officer Susan Thompson did not read the Miranda warning before the interrogation and no...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document