Preview

The Ethicality Of Miranda's Criminal Interrogation

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1028 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
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

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    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
  • Good Essays

    Phoenix, Arizona in 1963, Ernesto Miranda was captured after a woman recognized him in a police lineup. He was indicted assaulting and kidnapping and addressed for two hours while in care of police. The officers that addressed him didn't educate him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-implication furthermore of his Sixth Amendment right to the help of a lawyer. Subsequently, Miranda admitted in doing the wrongdoings with which he was sentenced. His announcement had an affirmation that he knew of his privilege against self-implication. At his trial, the indictment utilized his admission to get a conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in jail on every check.…

    • 263 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Janet Ainsworth’s journal 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,” addresses the complexities that arise when attempting to invoke Miranda rights. Ainsworth begins the article by explaining how the Miranda rights were established as a compromise with its initial goal to alleviate pressure from those detained. She references the Davis v United States case as a key example due to its ruling which held that Miranda rights could only be invoked when the language used by the arrestee has a clear and unambiguous meaning.…

    • 426 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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
  • Good Essays

    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
  • Good Essays

    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
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages

    * The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    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
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Warning: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Case Study

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda, a mexican immigrant living in the United States, was arrested by officers Carroll Cooley and Wilfred Young at Miranda's home in Phoenix, AZ. He was put into custody and taken to a local police station. Miranda was put into police lineup and was identified by the witness, Lois Jameson. Following, Miranda was interrogated for two hours by two police officers with the Arizona police department, before making a written and signed confession of the crimes. This confession was presented at trial and Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on each count of kidnapping and rape. The Supreme Court of Arizona found that Miranda's constitutional rights weren't personally violated, but ruled that police officers are required to…

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Janet Ainsworth

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages

    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
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    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
  • Good Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona

    • 1588 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona was not the first case where the officers did not let the defendant know about their counsel rights. For example, on December 19, 1963, Miss Lucile O. Mitchell was beaten and robbed; she was found on her porch dead. Prior to this case (People v. Stewart), the local officers have been investigating a series of robberies that were occurring in the area, the officers suspected that there could be a connection with all the robberies. One of the previous victims was carrying checks with her and those checks were cashed. The officers interviewed the owner of the market where the checks were cashed, the owner told them about Mr. Stewart. Without any proved that Mr. Stewart was the one committing the robberies, he was interrogated for a couple of days without telling him about his rights to a counsel. In one of the interrogations the defendant confessed that he was the one who robbed Miss Mitchell but did not intend to kill her. His confession was used as evidence against him, even though the defendant stated that he gave his statement involuntary. Nothing in the records stated if the defendant was informed prior to his confession of his counsel rights and to remain silent. On the appeal, the argument was that the officers had not effectively informed the defendant of his counsel rights or of his…

    • 1588 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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

Related Topics