Miranda Vs Arizona Essay
Police procedures before and after Miranda v Arizona
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Before the establishment of Miranda rights, the only requirement was that the concessions by the suspects had to be voluntary. This requirement posed issues such as the suspect challenging confessions during trial on grounds that at the time the suspect was under duress. The Miranda rights protect individual’s rights by ensuring that they are aware of the consequences of what they say while they are in police custody or under integration. Miranda rights have become a necessity as failure to read the suspect his or her Miranda rights means that evidence obtained cannot be used in court.
Prior to Miranda, police interrogations were regulated by the fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Under the Due Process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, only voluntary confessions were admissible. Involuntary confessions were not admissible but there was no procedure to prescribe coercive practices …show more content…
Miranda, however recanted the confession later. At the time, the suspect was not aware that he did not have to say anything to the police. The suspect was convicted and he subsequently appealed that his confession were false and coerced. This case established the guidelines of how suspects are informed of their constitutional rights. These rights require the police to inform suspects that they are not required to answer police questions. These rights are based on the understanding that the police have a burden to prove the suspect is guilty and the burden is not on the suspect to prove his innocence. Miranda rights inform the suspect that hey don not have to say anything and that it is their constitutional right to be represented by an attorney or remain silent. This cases ended the courts struggle with the concept of voluntariness and replaced it with more clear
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Before the establishment of Miranda rights, the only requirement was that the concessions by the suspects had to be voluntary. This requirement posed issues such as the suspect challenging confessions during trial on grounds that at the time the suspect was under duress. The Miranda rights protect individual’s rights by ensuring that they are aware of the consequences of what they say while they are in police custody or under integration. Miranda rights have become a necessity as failure to read the suspect his or her Miranda rights means that evidence obtained cannot be used in court.
Prior to Miranda, police interrogations were regulated by the fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Under the Due Process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, only voluntary confessions were admissible. Involuntary confessions were not admissible but there was no procedure to prescribe coercive practices …show more content…
Miranda, however recanted the confession later. At the time, the suspect was not aware that he did not have to say anything to the police. The suspect was convicted and he subsequently appealed that his confession were false and coerced. This case established the guidelines of how suspects are informed of their constitutional rights. These rights require the police to inform suspects that they are not required to answer police questions. These rights are based on the understanding that the police have a burden to prove the suspect is guilty and the burden is not on the suspect to prove his innocence. Miranda rights inform the suspect that hey don not have to say anything and that it is their constitutional right to be represented by an attorney or remain silent. This cases ended the courts struggle with the concept of voluntariness and replaced it with more clear