The Ethicality Of Miranda's Criminal Interrogation
Criminal Interrogation is crucial in any investigation. Police have a great responsibility in telling the suspects their rights, using the proper tactics and even machines to get a confession. Everything police use is to get to the truth. The Miranda Rights are read to any person under arrested. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights?” Without these rights being read to the suspect, any confession given to an interrogator or police man cannot be used. The name of these rights comes from a man named Ernest Miranda. On November 27, 1962, a woman
…show more content…
The man was going to rob the lady, but decided he wanted more. The lady screamed and the man ran away (4). One more incident like the first two occurred, but the third lady was not as fortunate as the others. The last lady was raped by the man who attacked the other ladies. After an investigation by the police, they found their number one suspect, Ernest …show more content…
The police had a confession from the defendant. In the court, Miranda’s trial took only a few days. Miranda’s attorney, Alvin Moore, was inexperienced in criminal court and most of the time did more harm than good for Miranda. The attorney did however make some good points. He argued that a person can’t voluntarily confess to a crime if he is not told his right to remain silent. Attorney Moore’s argument made no difference at the time because Miranda was found guilty of robbery and rape (11). Miranda was considered by almost parties involved to be guilty. The question that was beginning to be asked was when can “suspects” protect themselves with their constitutional rights?
These thoughts were still rumbling around in the nation when another trial happened that raised the volume of those rumblings. Danny Escobedo was put in the interrogation room being a suspect for murder. When in the room, the police told Escobedo that he might as well confess because they had enough to put him away. Escobedo replied by asking for a lawyer. Warren Wolfson, Escobedo previous lawyer in another matter, arrived at the police station shortly after Escobedo was taken in, but was not allowed to see his
The man was going to rob the lady, but decided he wanted more. The lady screamed and the man ran away (4). One more incident like the first two occurred, but the third lady was not as fortunate as the others. The last lady was raped by the man who attacked the other ladies. After an investigation by the police, they found their number one suspect, Ernest …show more content…
The police had a confession from the defendant. In the court, Miranda’s trial took only a few days. Miranda’s attorney, Alvin Moore, was inexperienced in criminal court and most of the time did more harm than good for Miranda. The attorney did however make some good points. He argued that a person can’t voluntarily confess to a crime if he is not told his right to remain silent. Attorney Moore’s argument made no difference at the time because Miranda was found guilty of robbery and rape (11). Miranda was considered by almost parties involved to be guilty. The question that was beginning to be asked was when can “suspects” protect themselves with their constitutional rights?
These thoughts were still rumbling around in the nation when another trial happened that raised the volume of those rumblings. Danny Escobedo was put in the interrogation room being a suspect for murder. When in the room, the police told Escobedo that he might as well confess because they had enough to put him away. Escobedo replied by asking for a lawyer. Warren Wolfson, Escobedo previous lawyer in another matter, arrived at the police station shortly after Escobedo was taken in, but was not allowed to see his