Introduction:
Everyone has different views on how the criminal justice system should be ran. Some think that these ‘criminals’ shouldn’t get the same rights as normal citizens since they committed a crime, but they are humans too and deserve to partake in the same rights as the rest of society. The criminal justice system is definitely broken, so it is important to examine the parts that aren’t being operated appropriately and try to fix it for the best possible outcomes in the future. The court case I picked is probably one of the most well known cases dealing with the criminal justice system, and a very important outcome has resulted from this case, a practice that is now mandatory for all arrest scenarios. In this piece, the Miranda v. …show more content…
Everyone has heard the Miranda warning before, whether it was from a television show or movie. With that being said, a good majority of citizens don’t really know/understand their rights. If individuals aren’t aware of their rights, they don’t know if/when they are being taken advantage of. Although the Miranda warning clearly states an individuals rights, offenders can still have false confessions. Richard Leo argues that it’s not uncommon for people to make false confessions when talking to investigators and it happens more frequently than not (Leo, 1998). The author also claims that courts and law enforcement officers treat the Constitution differently, adding as much or as little discretion as needed. When it comes to certain things in the criminal justice system, discretion shouldn’t be necessarily, everyone should receive the same outcome or punishment. “U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that suspects in custody must be informed of their rights to remain silent and be represented during questioning” (Cole, Smith, DeJong, 2014). That quote is the definition of Miranda v. Arizona from an introduction to criminal justice book. It is important to note that this is how the Miranda v. Arizona case is being taught to future criminal justice employees. The book also mentions that some police officers are trained to interrogate suspects to talk despite reading them their Miranda rights, which morally isn’t right. Officers are gaining information the improper way especially since society don’t fully understand their rights. Although they are all very similar, every state has their own version of how they read off the Miranda rights, and if they are not read properly, it can lead to consequences. Overall, it is the Miranda rights are a very critical element of our criminal justice system and more people should learn and understand exactly what it is so they know if they are being
Everyone has different views on how the criminal justice system should be ran. Some think that these ‘criminals’ shouldn’t get the same rights as normal citizens since they committed a crime, but they are humans too and deserve to partake in the same rights as the rest of society. The criminal justice system is definitely broken, so it is important to examine the parts that aren’t being operated appropriately and try to fix it for the best possible outcomes in the future. The court case I picked is probably one of the most well known cases dealing with the criminal justice system, and a very important outcome has resulted from this case, a practice that is now mandatory for all arrest scenarios. In this piece, the Miranda v. …show more content…
Everyone has heard the Miranda warning before, whether it was from a television show or movie. With that being said, a good majority of citizens don’t really know/understand their rights. If individuals aren’t aware of their rights, they don’t know if/when they are being taken advantage of. Although the Miranda warning clearly states an individuals rights, offenders can still have false confessions. Richard Leo argues that it’s not uncommon for people to make false confessions when talking to investigators and it happens more frequently than not (Leo, 1998). The author also claims that courts and law enforcement officers treat the Constitution differently, adding as much or as little discretion as needed. When it comes to certain things in the criminal justice system, discretion shouldn’t be necessarily, everyone should receive the same outcome or punishment. “U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that suspects in custody must be informed of their rights to remain silent and be represented during questioning” (Cole, Smith, DeJong, 2014). That quote is the definition of Miranda v. Arizona from an introduction to criminal justice book. It is important to note that this is how the Miranda v. Arizona case is being taught to future criminal justice employees. The book also mentions that some police officers are trained to interrogate suspects to talk despite reading them their Miranda rights, which morally isn’t right. Officers are gaining information the improper way especially since society don’t fully understand their rights. Although they are all very similar, every state has their own version of how they read off the Miranda rights, and if they are not read properly, it can lead to consequences. Overall, it is the Miranda rights are a very critical element of our criminal justice system and more people should learn and understand exactly what it is so they know if they are being