Preview

Arguments Against Miranda Rights

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
143 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Arguments Against Miranda Rights
Miranda Rights are an essential part of the United States judicial system. Without the right against self-incrimination, the prosecution would no longer bear the burden of proof in criminal court. They could simply ask: "Did you do it?" However, the article this week details the intense pressure of the interrogation room, regardless of whether physical tactics are used or not. It almost sounded like some confessions were coerced, though they clearly met the legal definition of a confession. Is it truly the right to remain silent after being interviewed for days at a time? While I am a strong supporter of the right against self-incrimination, the closing paragraph of the article summed it up nicely: "the privilege is fulfilled only when
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

    Was Mr. Miranda fully apprised of his constitutional rights when the officers failed to inform Mr. Miranda that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation?…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 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

    The year 1966 was a turning point for rights of United States citizens because of the Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping of a woman. Following his arrest, he was convicted based on his confession of the crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that his rights were violated according to the Fifth Amendment, which lead to his release. Reynolds Lancaster and Gina Jones were two authors that pointed importance of rights and issues related to the case Miranda v. Arizona, which lead to the Miranda warning.…

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

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

    Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study

    Their reasoning behind this decision was because it needed to be stated that he had to the right to remain silent. Not only this, but he was not told that anything that he said could be used against him in the future. These reasons were then able to prove that Miranda was not able to speak to the police freely upon his own choice of decision. One of the reasons for the decision made was because Miranda did not know he had the right to an attorney leading for him to not have full knowledge of the case and what was going on. Therefore, because the fifth amendment was not applicable to the situation that Miranda was in the prosecution should not have been able to use any of the statements that were…

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

    Miranda V. Arizona
    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona

    Brief Fact Summary: Self-incriminating evidence was provided by the defendants while interrogated by police without prior notification of the Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution.…

    • 671 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
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966
    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    Soon thereafter his conviction Miranda appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme court. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction and Disagreed with the unconstitutional confession. It was then that Miranda took his appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In a fourth fifths vote the United States Supreme court ruled in favor of Miranda agreeing that the police that interrogated Miranda denied him of not only his 6th amendment right to counsel however also his fifth amendment right to incriminate himself. On a completely different note the Supreme Court recognized that Miranda as well as others accused of committing crimes have long been subject to police violence and intimidation especially during interrogations and therefore many confessions have been not only forced but possibly…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona
    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    miranda v. arizona

    Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda and it also enforced the Miranda warning to be given to a person being interrogated while in the custody of the police.…

    • 367 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

    Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis
    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Miranda V. Arizona Case Analysis

    The Fifth Amendment which in 1934 the “which protects a defendant from being compelled to be a witness against themselves” (Wright, 2013). The self-incrimination portion of the Fifth Amendment was tested case of Miranda v. Arizona. This is the same case that leads to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda warning is an “explanation of rights that must be given before any custodial interrogation” so that self-incrimination will not be a factor. No person can be compelled to openly admit to a crime. They cannot try to pry information out of someone if they have not been read their rights or if they ask for their attorney. It is a different story though is someone just starts rambling on when they are not asked. “Suspects can reinitiate an interrogation by coming forward and indicating to police they wish to talk and are willing to waive their Miranda rights. If there is a break in detention, the police may reinitiate the interrogation after fourteen days” (Wright, 2013).…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    John Adams Supreme Court Case
    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages

    John Adams Supreme Court Case

    Miranda never knew he did not have to speak with the police was interrogated and confessed and was sentenced to jail. Later an attorney looked over the case and requested Judicial Review Claiming that Ernesto’s rights has been violated. In 1966 The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s Conviction, and ruled that if a person is going to be taken in as a suspect they must be informed that they do have a right to and attorney. The suspect also has to be informed that the do not have to speak. The supreme court also ruled that if the suspect is not informed of these right the evidence obtained before hand can not be used in court. These rights are now known as the Miranda rights.…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona
    • 454 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    Creation of the Miranda rights has changed the relationship between citizen state and police suspects. Citizens now have the right to be informed and assurance that they will be protected by institutional power. Suspects can now anybody that they had nothing to with it. The Miranda warnings are rights that are not protected by the Constitution. They are simply a precaution to guarantee protection against self –incrimination. Without the Miranda rights, the treatment of criminals would not be fair.…

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

    Examples Of Abolishing The Fifth Amendment
    • 639 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Examples Of Abolishing The Fifth Amendment

    Criminal law by nature is interesting to most people. However, there are many citizens that misinterpret what their rights are in a court of law. For instance, the Fifth amendment is a person’s right to not self-incriminate. Defendants typically do not address the court directly. They do so through they attorney. Attorneys are “responsible for advising their clients of their right to testify, whether or not it is wise to do so, as ell as the strategic implications of that decision” (Stock, 2015, p. 712). Just because a defendant does not testify on their own behalf, should not presume guilt. The sixth amendment stipulates that a defendant has the right to an attorney and to a jury trial. This is the premise where miranda rights come into play.…

    • 639 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Why Are Miranda Laws Important
    • 1040 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Why Are Miranda Laws Important

    The laws are commonly heard in movie scenes consisting of suspected criminals being taken to questioning (“Miranda v Arizona 1966.” 328). For most police officers, reciting the miranda rights are a part of their everyday life. Miranda’s killer was never arrested because he remained silent after he was told he was allowed to do so, and there wasn't enough evidence gathered to use against him in the court of law. When people are given the right to remain silent, some will do so.…

    • 1040 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good 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

Related Topics