Miranda Decision Case

The Miranda decision emerges from a case back in 1966 which deals with the rights of the accused, mainly with the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate one’s self(Leo,1996).In this case Ernest Miranda,, a Mexican-American, was facing the state of Arizona for raping and kidnapping an eighteen year old woman.The case led to the Miranda warning which requires the officer to notify a suspect of his rights,i.e. you have the right to remain silent,and the right to speak to an attorney(Leo,1996). That the questions answered by Miranda during his interrogation must have been answered with the defendant’s knowledge of his rights.This made a big impact in the police force, that a testimony is only legitimate if the proper steps are carried out(Leo,1996).
The right to remain silence gives us the vital principle of liberty, and it also gives us privacy ,because the responsibility falls on the officer to build a case.If the person does not meet the burden, they are free to go(Leo,1996).
In NC, for example the percentage of those who confessed after their interrogation from 49 % before Miranda to 16 % after(Cassell,1998). Those criminals that are caught and question, as the questioning goes on, they deny to respond any longer and ask for an attorney.
In my opinion, the right to an attorney should be taken off the table, and the public safety law when it comes to the Miranda law should be expanded. When it comes to public safety, those arrested for terrorist crime law enforcement should be able to interrogate, without Mirandizing, and make their answers be