When someone is being questioned intensely, most people called that giving the “third degree.” Before the court case of Miranda vs Arizona, the police would use varies methods to get a confession out of a person such as intimidation or coercing. Thanks to the Miranda Warning, the police can no longer, well they are not supposed to use any of those methods as acquiring a confession out of a person. The reason for the Miranda Warning also known as the Miranda Rights, is because in 1966 Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping, robbing, and raping. When the police interrogated him, he confessed to the crimes. He was found guilty of all crimes. But, his conviction was later overturn because it was found that the police used intimidation to
…show more content…
With the ruling in Miranda vs Arizona, a suspect has the right to remain silent but doesn’t’ address the need for consul. So, in 1964, which was before the Miranda vs Arizona case, the case of Escobedo vs Illinois which gives a suspect the right to an attorney during questioning or to speak with an attorney before being questioned by the police especially if the suspect is going to trial or held in jail and the evidence and questioning is going to be used at the trial. It wasn’t until 1968 that the final draft of the Miranda Rights was given to the California deputy attorney.
Before the Miranda Rights were instituted, the only thing the court need to know was that the confession was given voluntarily. When it came time for the trial, the confession was question because evidence was sometimes presented that the person was not in their right mind at the time of confession or the person was under duress. The Miranda Rights are there to protect the citizens as well as the police. When the trial date comes, neither side can claim that anything illegal was done. Really, what are the Miranda Rights? The Miranda Rights are pretty much the same throughout the states only varying slightly in the wording. It states that a person has the
With the ruling in Miranda vs Arizona, a suspect has the right to remain silent but doesn’t’ address the need for consul. So, in 1964, which was before the Miranda vs Arizona case, the case of Escobedo vs Illinois which gives a suspect the right to an attorney during questioning or to speak with an attorney before being questioned by the police especially if the suspect is going to trial or held in jail and the evidence and questioning is going to be used at the trial. It wasn’t until 1968 that the final draft of the Miranda Rights was given to the California deputy attorney.
Before the Miranda Rights were instituted, the only thing the court need to know was that the confession was given voluntarily. When it came time for the trial, the confession was question because evidence was sometimes presented that the person was not in their right mind at the time of confession or the person was under duress. The Miranda Rights are there to protect the citizens as well as the police. When the trial date comes, neither side can claim that anything illegal was done. Really, what are the Miranda Rights? The Miranda Rights are pretty much the same throughout the states only varying slightly in the wording. It states that a person has the