Preview

Does The Miranda Right Unsure Justice And Preserve Liberty

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
235 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Does The Miranda Right Unsure Justice And Preserve Liberty
Does the Miranda right unsure justice and preserve liberty? The Miranda rights are a silent warning given to those that are accused of deeds they may or may have not committed. The Supreme Court dramatically changed the procedures throughout the country. They linked the Fifth Amendment to the Sixth Amendment to the suspect’s right from arrest through trail.
The Miranda rights in some cases do ensure justice and at times they don’t. They can unsure justice if they were read to the suspect but if not all the evidence they have collected could go out the window. But if they do read your rights they can continue with their investigation and them anything they find can be used against you. Do they preserve liberty? I personally think that it does not, nor does the Miranda rights unsure justice. I can’t speak from experience but what I have learned from cases I’ve read. I honestly don’t agree with the ways things are handled involving Miranda v. Arizona.
…show more content…
Though they help us they can also be a getaway ticket to some other people. If they play their cards right they can get away with things they have done. And depending on the outcome people get upset if a criminal gets away.
So do I believe that the Miranda v. Arizona does not unsure justice or preserve

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Miranda v. Arizona case is considered to be one of the most important and famous cases in modern law history that provided the foundation for some important legal provisions. It occurred in 1966 in Arizona, when a young man named Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, was charged with robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a young woman several years prior the trial (Zalman, 2010). Before the suspect was interrogated, the police did not inform him of his constitutional right to remain silent which allowed the interrogators to get the confession. Given that this case provided the foundation for the right to remain silent, it became very famous and important. The present paper attempts to analyze the…

    • 140 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Arizona: (1966) Rights in custody Ernesto Miranda a man who had not completed the ninth grade was arrested at his home in Arizona and identified as a suspect ina rape-kidnapping case. When he was questioned about the crime Miranda maintained he was innocent, but after two hours of interrogation he signed a confession. At the trial the confession was admitted as evidence and the court found Miranda guilty. The police acknowledged that Miranda had not been made aware. of his rights during the process nor had he had access to legal counsel. While the Miranda confession was given with relatively little pressure it still violated the constitutional requirements that governed such procedures. Inthis case, the Warren court ruled that the accused must be made aware of his or her rights from the…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Reynold Lancaster discussed how the Miranda warning is used by police officers and other law enforcements when they arrest a person of interest. The Miranda warning allows the officers…

    • 326 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Vs. Arizona

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Page

    Does Miranda vs. Arizona ensure justice and preserve liberty? I believe it does. This even took place during the 1960s.The case in involve statements that were obtained for police from an individual that was arrest. Ernesto Miranda a Mexican immigrant, whom was not aware of his rights, was arrested without his Fifth Amendment given. He was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman. He was interrogated, without formal agreement to do so. Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in jail. When in court his attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.…

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Their reasoning behind this decision was because it needed to be stated that he had to the right to remain silent. Not only this, but he was not told that anything that he said could be used against him in the future. These reasons were then able to prove that Miranda was not able to speak to the police freely upon his own choice of decision. One of the reasons for the decision made was because Miranda did not know he had the right to an attorney leading for him to not have full knowledge of the case and what was going on. Therefore, because the fifth amendment was not applicable to the situation that Miranda was in the prosecution should not have been able to use any of the statements that were…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    2. I definitely feel like the Miranda Warning is still a valid concept. I feel like reminds the suspect that they still have rights and they are still innocent until proven guilty. Being a suspect of any crime is probably very scary and can be overwhelming with emotions.…

    • 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
  • 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Arizona vs Miranda

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda was not given a full and effective warning of his rights. He was not told of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Miranda was found guilty of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. During the prosecution, Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. In the end of 1966, 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 informs Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court of Arizona detailed the principles governing police interrogation. Arizona ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    First, individual liberties and freedoms are important since without them one can be held indefinitely. Habeas corpus also known as the “great writ of liberty” guarantees that a person who is being held unjustly can go free (Habeas corpus, 2011). This is one of the reasons that make America so great because anyone who is detained can know the reason why they are being held and in so are allowed due process under the law. The Constitution protects the…

    • 2236 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Janet Ainsworth

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Ainsworth shows that this is not the case, as the reading of the Miranda Rights was brought about by the Supreme Court as a compromise to keep the effectiveness of interrogation without violating the rights of the suspect. By making the reading of the Miranda Rights legal and necessary, suspects are made aware of their rights but are not told how to bring them about. This also means that it is incredibly easy for suspects to waive their rights by simply using incorrect wording or even not speaking at all. The reading also serves the purpose of allowing police to interrogate. Of course, the very need for the Miranda Rights suggests that there is an innate injustice in the use of interrogation. This is because of the inherent power dynamic between the police officers and the suspects. Officers hold sway over the suspects and know very well how to use legal language. The typical suspect does not and because of this sense of powerlessness is therefore submissive to the officer, which leads to meek behavior and language. They lack the authority necessary in using legal language to bring about the actions they would require, such as a lawyer, if they even realized they were in need of…

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The first court ruling where Miranda was found guilty to armed robbery was thrown out after his case was and brought up to the Supreme Court. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have informed them of their rights, which are now called Miranda Rights. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights while in custody, therefore any confessions he made could not be used against him in court. At the Supreme Court level, the conviction was overthrown because he was not informed of his right against self incrimination and his right to remain silent. The case was later re-tried without using his confessions in the trial. Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years for armed robbery. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping, he could not be prosecuted for it because there was not enough evidence to show he was the offender in those crimes once his confession was thrown out. Chief justice, Earl Warren established the…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Miranda Rights are part of a preventative criminal procedure rule that states law enforcement are required to administer Miranda Rights to an individual who is in custody and is subject to direct questioning for a criminal violation of law. When a person is detained or taken into custodial arrest and interrogated for a criminal offense, if he or she wishes to remain silent the individual must expressly state that he or she chooses to remain silent. In addition, if the individual asserts that he or she wishes to speak to an attorney or have an attorney present, police must then cease interrogations and wait until…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The rights you are read while being placed under arrest are the Miranda rights. They state that what you say will be used against you in court and that you have the right to an attorney. These rights are read to protect your freedom and to inform you of your constitutional rights. It became procedure to state the rights after the Miranda vs. Arizona case. Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for counts of kidnapping and rape. In court, Miranda argued that he did not know his rights and that they should have been told to him. He is the reason that criminal suspects receive more justice from police officers.…

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Freedom stands for something greater than just the right to act of how Americans choose. The right to a trial by jury is to give two americans their right to procrastinate against each other about what really happened in their situation they were in. Judges wouldn't know who did the crime if both defendants had no physical or visual evidence of what really happened at the scene. A trial by jury is really based on the amount of evidence and points you've proved to the judge about the case. The most concerned day of our lives today is walking through the doors to a trial by jury, because you may never know who's staying free and who's paying the time.…

    • 900 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays