The Miranda warning is police warning given to criminal suspects in custody and at times, before arrest, in the United States of America. This does not mean that police needs to give Miranda warnings for questions regarding a person's addresses, names or any other biographical information…
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you." ( "Miranda Warning")
Most people dreaded that government could act or treat according to their wishes, once any one was declared as criminal suspects. For this reason, there are certain rights, the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney that have been ensured by the Constitution. However, most people remain ignorant of such rights and a result, the police has for years taken advantage of the people's ignorance of this fact. This is what happened in the Ernesto Miranda in 1963 when he was accused of abducting and raping a young girl. He wasn't made cognizant of his rights and therefore confessed to his crime. In 1966, however, the Supreme Court disregarded his confessions as evidence against him as he wasn't aware of his rights to remain silent and his right to an attorney. Since then Miranda warnings has been given out to anyone who is suspected of a crime so that he later not argue of being unaware of his rights. (" The Miranda Warning")
Other than in cases of "custodial interrogation" as in Miranda case, the court has put down situations where Miranda warnings need to be given. In 1977 during Oregon vs. Mathiason case, the court put forward other situations where the people need to Mirandized. ...
Cite this document
(“Miranda Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/278227-miranda
(Miranda Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 Words)
“Miranda Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/278227-miranda.
constitutional law. Centered on the case was an indigent Mexican, Ernesto Miranda, who made and signed a written confession to crimes of kidnapping and rape in Arizona in 1963. During the custodial police interrogation, Miranda was not accorded his privilege of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution: the right against self-incrimination and the right to assistance of a legal counsel, respectively.
Even though almost the entire literature on the Miranda Act has been ideological and dogmatic, a number of studies have looked at the effect of the Miranda Act on individuals and law enforcement personnel and if it has successfully attained its stated objectives (Leo, 1996).
In the United States, this need was recognized through looking at English common law, based on the Magna Carta, which set forth the rights of individual citizens as against the King. In this common law tradition, the United States further elaborated on the Constitution to institute Miranda Rights to make sure the Fifth Amendment is practiced in reality and law enforcement does not abuse or manipulate its suspects to serve its own ends.
We know we have the right to remain silent and have a right to an attorney. Yet, the Miranda decision was far more reaching than the few principles that are read from a card. It reaches back into history to establish a precedent and presents ongoing dilemmas as it faces new challenges for the courts and law enforcement.
While I am far from happy with the fact that a cold-blooded murderer could walk free because he was not advised of his Miranda rights, I maintain that they are in place for a very good reason, and that the interrogation techniques of police officers need to be worked on if too many cases are being thrown out for Miranda violations.
The facts of the case were that the plaintiff, Ernest Miranda, was suspected of rape and robbery. These crimes had taken place ten days prior to his arrest. The police went to his home and asked him to accompany them to the police station for inquiry. Miranda was unsure, as to whether he could refuse to accompany them.
on, made without any assurance of protection or threats and “with complete familiarity of his legal privileges, including any declaration which he made might be employed against him. Later, Miranda’s admission was allowed into testimony at the trial, and he was sentenced
years many terrorist suspects have not been read these rights and it has come to the point that many people, lawmakers and officials believe that they should not be entitled to the rights that are drawn out in the Miranda warnings. As these terrorist suspects are innocent until
4. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to