Preview

The Right to Remain Silent

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1164 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Right to Remain Silent
Should The Courts Be Allowed To Restrict A Suspect Being Told That He Or She Has The Right To Remain Silent?
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you” (US Constitution Online. Steve Mount. May 10 2008). Do you recognize this as your Miranda Rights? These rights are based on the US Supreme Court’s historic Miranda vs. Arizona case and are your Constitutional rights as an accused person prior to any law enforcement questioning. On May 7, 2000 Brenton Butler, a 15 year old black male from Jacksonville, Florida, was accused of robbery and murder (Murder on a Sunday Morning. Dir. Jean-Xavier de Lestrade. Denis Poncet. 2000. DVD). This became known as the documentary, “Murder on a Sunday Morning”. Upon his arrest, and as part of legal procedure, he was read his Miranda Rights. “We could make arrangements for that” according to Detective James H. Williams. However, neither Williams nor the other arresting officers followed through with the correct course of action to get him a lawyer. It was the officers’ duty to get Butler in touch with his lawyer or a public defender, however; he was not given an attorney until the next day. He was properly told of his rights and still chose to speak with the detectives without proper representation. Should the court restrict a suspect’s right to be told that he can remain silent? In this essay I will argue both for and against being told that “you have the right to remain silent.” The Supreme Court issued the Miranda decision in 1966, requiring police to inform any and all criminal suspects of their right to remain silent and to converse with a lawyer (Cornell Law School University. 1995-2004). While it is intended to prevent police misconduct, the Miranda warning constraint can be taken to boundaries that can contaminate police work and threaten just


Cited: Brandsberg-Engelmann, Jennifer. 2002. . Cornell University Law School. 1995-2004. . Marquis, Joshua “Upfront” New York, New York. Penguin. 1 September 2003 p. 64 Mount, Steve. 1995-2008. “The Miranda Warning”. . Mount, Steve. 1995-2009. “The Constitution for Kids”. . Murder on a Sunday Morning. Dir. Jean-Xavier de Lestrade. Denis Poncet. 2000. DVD The Kavinoky Law Firm. “Miranda Warning”. 2009. . The University of Chicago. “Amendment V” 1987. .
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Brief in Irac Format
    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Brief in Irac Format

    In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Treyvon Martin Case Study
    • 399 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Treyvon Martin Case Study

    With the widespread national media coverage of the Treyvon Martin shooting, facts can be easily misconstrued and bring about prejudices on the case in its entirety and also George Zimmerman. What was tragic incident turned into a highly publicized phenomenon. Facts and specifics of the case should be private and the amount of time from indictment to trial is detrimental to a fair trial, a sixth amendment right under the United States Constitution. The circumstances surrounding Martin’s death, combined with the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman after detainment and questioning by police, along with a query and examination of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground”…

    • 399 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Modern Law: The Miranda V. Arizona Case
    • 140 Words
    • 1 Page

    Modern Law: The Miranda V. Arizona Case

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona
    • 326 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study
    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study

    The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case, the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly, this letter stated that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. From the evidence found, Miranda was sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. From here the Supreme Court stated that, “...Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession…” (Miranda V Arizona).…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study
    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of Miranda v. Arizona set a precedence on how future suspects would be interrogated. It makes complete sense to advise a person that is being interrogated that he or she has a right to remain silent during interrogation and that he or she has the right to have counsel present during an interrogation. It's also important that the suspect be fully aware and full understand his or her rights before the interrogation begins. -WRITTEN AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION-METHODS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT By Harvey Wallace and Cliff Roberson(CHAPTER 9 PAGE 136)…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Thomkins Research Paper
    • 201 Words
    • 1 Page

    Thomkins Research Paper

    On January 10, 2000, two people got shot on the outside of a shopping mall; one person was killed and another wounded. Thompkins was convicted of murder and firearms related charges in Michigan state trial court. Thompkins was arrested one year later, the police officers had him to read a written form with the Miranda Warnings and the officer read the rest of the form to Thompkins. The police officer asks Thompkins to sign the form to show that he understood his right and he refused. The officers interrogated Thompkins for nearly three hours, Thimpkins responses the police officers with “yes”, “no” or “I don’t know”. Thimpkins didn’t state that he wished to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to stay silent. Later, an officer asked Thompkins if…

    • 201 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966
    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    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
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper
    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

    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
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Arizona vs Miranda
    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Arizona vs Miranda

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Janet Ainsworth
    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Janet Ainsworth

    In Janet Ainsworth’s article, “‘You have the right to remain silent…’ but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law,” she explores the linguistic complexities of legal language, specifically the usage of the Miranda Rights in interrogation.…

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    The Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona
    • 1525 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona

    This case was also impacted because the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and a self-incrimination. The police duties were to give these warnings compelled by the Constitutions Fifth Amendment “which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse” to be a witness against himself”, and Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an…

    • 1525 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    What Does Miranda Rights Mean To You
    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages

    What Does Miranda Rights Mean To You

    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
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Criminal Justice
    • 915 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Criminal Justice

    4. What is the difference between absolute immunity and use (including derivative use) immunity? 10pts…

    • 915 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More

Related Topics