How Has Miranda V. Arizona Changed the Arrest and Interrogation Process.

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 2176
  • Published : October 18, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
How has Miranda v. Arizona changed the arrest and interrogation process.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America often makes decisions, which change this great nation in a great way. These changes can affect society in many different ways. In many instances there is dissonance over their decisions and the court itself is often split as to how the views are looked upon. The effect of the Courts decision generates discourse and on occasion, violence. This is what happened in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. This case changed the history of this country and left a tremendous impact, which many challenge, the ruling and still protest today. The Miranda Warning is intended to protect the guilty as well as the innocent and should be protected at all costs. Without the law, many suspects may be treated unfairly. It is a necessary safeguard. Its intentions were to give suspects an informed choice between their freedom of speech, their right not to speak, but be silent, and the prevent statements being given in a non-voluntary nature. Since the law was imposed police policies and procedures were promoted and enforced that effectively imposed safeguards throughout law enforcement agencies. However, with any law there is also discourse. In this essay I plan to give a brief summary of Miranda and discuss the advantages and disadvantages that Miranda provides for suspects and law enforcement officials. The Supreme Court decision of 1966 of Miranda dictated a specific practice and conduct that law enforcement had to comply with when dealing with criminal suspects. It established that law enforcement was demanded to advise arrested persons or suspects of criminal acts that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and they have the right to an attorney. If they were not informed of these rights then a violation had occurred under the 5th Amendment regarding self-incrimination. When questioning initially...
tracking img