Miranda Warnings

Miranda v. Arizona “You are going to prison”, is the statement Ernesto Miranda probably heard as he was arrested by police from the comfort of his home, in 1963, without warning or being advised of his Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda, 22 years old, was charged with raping an 18-year-old female. Subsequently, he was brought to a police department station where he was placed into an interrogation room isolated from everyone. After two grueling hours of questioning; Miranda was feeling dazed, confused and exhausted, Miranda felt forced to sign a confession statement given to him by detective claiming that Miranda did so without duress. Further stating, “Ernesto fully comprehended the charges made against him”. A technique not uncommon during
If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided for you. “(“The Miranda Rule”) Miranda warnings are debatable, but it is necessary for present-day policing, and it assists both the suspect and the police department. In today’s society, many have heard of these rights whether or not they have been arrested by police from many law enforcement television shows like CSI or “How to Get Away with Murder”. These modern day television series depict how important the use of Miranda warnings is for detainees that find themselves on the wrong side of the law. On the other hand, movies based on true stories like The Ruben “Hurricane” Carter show demonstrated how lives could be destroyed when vindictive and manipulating detectives abuse their power. The Miranda Warning helps keep abuses in check; if used correctly, the guilty can receive their due chastisement and it helps prosecutors to be more efficient in trying cases making it very unlikely that the judge presiding over any case would throw out statements made during questioning, creating a balance of sorts in the criminal justice
It is now such standard police procedure that it is difficult to think it continues to make such a large and costly effect on the US court systems. Just about everyone knows about the Miranda law now, and suspects can waive their Miranda rights if they choose, and they are informed they are waiving their rights if they choose to talk to an interrogator anyway. As one expert notes, Miranda has not really created a new wave of interrogation – suspects will still waive their rights if they think it will help serve them in some way. "Guilty suspects who think they can outsmart police would have talked in the 'old days' and today gladly waive their Miranda rights and talk to the police. Guilty suspects who can be tricked into making damaging statements by the police can also be tricked into waiving their Miranda rights (Thomas 1). Thus, Miranda, while creating controversy, really has not seemed to flood the courts with inadmissible cases, neither has it changed, for the most part, how police go about getting confessions from suspects. Thus, the arguments that Miranda costs the taxpayer more money while allowing suspects to go free simply does not hold water. In addition, in many cases, the Miranda rule helps policing, because it ensures the information the police obtain will hold up in court, and it ensures the rights of the suspect are maintained