Miranda Rights: Keeping Justice

Decent Essays
In this society there are many ways to keep justice. One of those ways to keep justice is the Miranda Rights. The Miranda Rights are phrases that are stated when one is put into custody. one of the Miranda Rights is the right to remain silent ,this is the most common right. When it comes to the reason why the Miranda rights were made the the story is that in Phoenix during the year of 1963 resident Ernesto Miranda was charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to his police investigation. During his two hour investigation Miranda confessed to the crime in which he had no attorney present. At this moment the only solid evidence of the crime was his confession. Miranda was convicted

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Television shows and movies have depicted the scenario where a suspect is arrested and read their Miranda rights. The process of reading a suspect their rights appears to be critical before a suspect is handcuffed and placed into police custody. The podcast entitled Miranda v Arizona by the author South East Texas CJ (2015) highlights why reading suspects their rights is so important. Miranda V Arizona was a case involving a female victim who was restrained, kidnapped, and raped in the year of 1963 in Phoenix Arizona. The woman was released near her home.…

    • 292 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While in interrogation Miranda wrote a confession claiming that he was making the “statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any…

    • 1451 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However, he later attempted to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, his attorney arguing that due to the fact that he was not told his Fifth and Sixth amendment rights as an American citizen, that all the confessions he made before he was told the rights cannot be used against him. Although the police admit that they neglected to inform him of his rights, the court still ruled Miranda guilty, as he had been convicted previously and should already know the rights he has in interrogation. The ruling was later reversed by the Supreme Court. Contextualize. Why did it matter at the given time in History?…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda warning includes what rights we have when we are being arrested or interrogated. Police officers or other law enforcement officers must tell a person their Miranda rights during an arrest. After the warning is given to someone being arrested, the person also has the right to speak to an attorney. These rights became a part of the Fifth and Six amendments that already existed in our U.S. Constitution.…

    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona 1966

    • 184 Words
    • 1 Pages

    Miranda v. Arizona 1966 is the court case I chose to assess in how it changed the way law enforcement agencies comply with and work through the law. As mentioned previously, the Supreme Court was presented with this case in 1966, and it was in reference to interrogation tactics used by the police force. The Supreme Court justices used the 5th and 6th Amendments to explain the clauses regarding self-incrimination and the right to an attorney; the decision was passed with a 5-4 vote (Alvernia Universitiy Online, 2016). Statements made by a defendant to police officers are now only advisable at a trial if the defendant was presented with verbal confirmation of their rights, as a result of this landmark court decision – these rights today are…

    • 184 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Upon their arrival the suspect, John Smith, has been already under arrest for the robbery and the shooting of a guard. Smith is arrested and placed into police custody, during the ride back to the station Smith says, “I am so sorry, I shot him!” Smith’s statement would be admissible in court because while he was being arrested, he was not being interrogated because he was sitting in the back of a police cruiser. The requirement for Miranda Rights is they must be given before and pertinent questioning or interrogation of the suspect is started Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.).…

    • 690 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Memphis criminal attorney J. Jeffrey Lee, if police fail to read a Miranda warning to a person in custody being questioned, the police cannot use self-incriminating information obtained from the person. Cornell University's Legal Information Institute notes that this is part of the Exclusionary Rule. The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of a person in police custody from coercive police interrogation explains Carl A. Benoit, J.D.…

    • 276 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Arizona (1966). This decision, generally speaking, defined the rights of the accused after an appeal was made on behalf of Ernesto Miranda. It said, among other things, that each person accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney (Document 7). The tradition of these Miranda rights has become common knowledge in American society, despite the fact that some people believe that they are generally too lenient and often hamper the justice system’s ability to convict guilty criminals of their crimes (Documents 5a & 5b). The Supreme Court has failed to see adequate need for reversal of this decision, despite the dramatic odds that lie in favour of the accused as a result of the decision, and the fact that the victim is often left without help when the offender is not convicted.…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The investigators found a written confession admitting the offense. However, the police officers who arrested Miranda did not advise him to have an attorney during the interrogation. Even though the court charged Miranda for the crimes, the appeal in the Supreme Court of Arizona found no violation of his constitutional rights since he failed to request counsel. The amendment in check was the Fifth Amendment. D. 419 U.S. 565 Goss v. Lopez Argued: October 16, 1974 Decided: January 22,…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We all have heard about our Fifth Amendment and the Miranda right. The Miranda right derived from the case Miranda vs. Arizona. In this case Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping. The police made a mistake by not tell him he had the right to remain silent. When this went to court, it was overruled because Miranda’s Fifth Amendment was violated.…

    • 304 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Arizona, which ruled that the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence brought against a defendant at trial is only admissible if the defendant has been informed of his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to consult with an attorney. This Supreme Court decision was brought about by the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who provided a confession to police without being informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. The Arizona State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that because he had not been informed of his rights, his rights had not been properly upheld. The key to this decision is the distinction between an informed waiving of those rights, and an uninformed waiving of those rights. If a person is convicted based on self-incrimination, the prosecution must be able to prove that they were explicitly aware of and subsequently waived their rights.…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The three parts of the decision went as followed. The first was the Fifth Amendment privilege (which states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury). In this instance, Miranda was basically compelled to be a witness against himself and his confession was obtained in a way that did not meet the constitutional standards. What was also a large factor to this part of the case was that he was not offered or given the right to an attorney to consult with during the interrogation process with the…

    • 1106 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Rights Case

    • 761 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Miranda Rights Ernesto Miranda kidnapped a woman, drove her into the desert, and raped her. After an 11 day investigation, Detectives Cooley and Young caught Miranda and took him to the police station for questioning. During Miranda’s interrogation, he was told he had been positively identified in a lineup and that he would not be released without a full confession. Miranda wrote out his confession on a paper with a preprinted statement indicating he knew his Constitutional rights and was voluntarily confessing. He was charged with rape and kidnapping in the first degree due to the 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright (right to an attorney free of charge), the court appointed him public defender Alvin Moore.…

    • 761 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Constitutional Amendment and Miranda October 28, 2015 Argosy University, Atlanta Hicks, Sandra, Student Constitutional Amendment and Miranda The Supreme Court case law makes up the majority of what is called, The Constitutional Law and according to the rule of stare decis, the judges must make decisions that are directed by cases that were previously settled. The Bill of Rights and its’ amendments to the Constitution were developed to protect the rights and the freedom of every individual in the United States.…

    • 1688 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He appealed his case all the way up to the Supreme Court, claiming that the confession had been obtained unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not use Miranda’s confession as evidence because the police had not informed Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right against…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays