24/04/2016
Istanbul Kemerburgaz University
School of Economics and Administrative Sciences
IR 375 Political Society in The U.S.A.
Murat Can KAYA
217771
Miranda Rights: Miranda v. Arizona 1966
Today’s world, suspects and defendants has some rights in modern law system. Some of them are most important and protected by contitutional law. Most important and first one is right to learn their rights. This article appeared with Miranda Decision by The Supreme Court in 1966.
The Miranda warning is intended to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions (http://www.mirandarights.org/) so with this right the people who are under arrest must know their rights while questioning. It is related principle of …show more content…
A man kidnap a eighteen-year-old woman by his car, tie her hands and legs, and rip her. After the ripping he left her near thr her house. After the investigation polices arrested Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican man. He questioned by police and confess the truths and he wrote his confesses with sign. But when Miranda questioned the police did not mention about his rights so he protested this decision and he said that no one told me my rights during the questioned by the police. State Supreme Court ignored his protests and the court reasoning to Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). According to this they can decide to unutilize his right to an attorney in case do not let consult to his attorney whereas he did not request any attorney during questioned. So Miranda case, People v. Vignera(1965), Westover v. United States (1965), and People v. Stewart cases has been sent to The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. because these four case has same way. All suspects did not know their rights during questioned. The Supreme Court judge them as one and the Miranda v. Arizona decisions appeared. According to this decision if prosecutor cannot prove the force a person to accused himself they also cannot use the evidences taken by the suspects. According to Miranda Rights, there is right to silent, anything you said will use against you in the court, right to an attorney, if you cannot afford any attorney police can do it for you and also suspects can waive …show more content…
For example, a suspect has been questioned in police station cannot use the Miranda Rights because according to Supreme Court he is not arrest as technically (Oregon v. Mathiason). Even a driver questioned in traffic by police also cannot use Miranda Rights because he is not questioned in a police station. There is also the inevitable discovery exception. According to this if prosecutor can convince the judge like if he observe the Miranda Rights but there is also discover things, the evidence which is taken by without Miranda Rights can be accepted.
In Oregon v. Elstad (1985), the police received a confess by suspect without mention about the Miranda Rights and then he remebered the Miranda Rights and he told him his rights so suspect could not take back his confession and he lost right to deny his confession. The first confession invalid and the second confession is valid.
Another stretch situation is about waivering own rights. Colorado v. Spring (1987) case, the criminal waived his rights in one crime but the Supreme Court accept it as in all crimes. It means he cannot use his Miranda Rights in other
Istanbul Kemerburgaz University
School of Economics and Administrative Sciences
IR 375 Political Society in The U.S.A.
Murat Can KAYA
217771
Miranda Rights: Miranda v. Arizona 1966
Today’s world, suspects and defendants has some rights in modern law system. Some of them are most important and protected by contitutional law. Most important and first one is right to learn their rights. This article appeared with Miranda Decision by The Supreme Court in 1966.
The Miranda warning is intended to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions (http://www.mirandarights.org/) so with this right the people who are under arrest must know their rights while questioning. It is related principle of …show more content…
A man kidnap a eighteen-year-old woman by his car, tie her hands and legs, and rip her. After the ripping he left her near thr her house. After the investigation polices arrested Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican man. He questioned by police and confess the truths and he wrote his confesses with sign. But when Miranda questioned the police did not mention about his rights so he protested this decision and he said that no one told me my rights during the questioned by the police. State Supreme Court ignored his protests and the court reasoning to Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). According to this they can decide to unutilize his right to an attorney in case do not let consult to his attorney whereas he did not request any attorney during questioned. So Miranda case, People v. Vignera(1965), Westover v. United States (1965), and People v. Stewart cases has been sent to The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. because these four case has same way. All suspects did not know their rights during questioned. The Supreme Court judge them as one and the Miranda v. Arizona decisions appeared. According to this decision if prosecutor cannot prove the force a person to accused himself they also cannot use the evidences taken by the suspects. According to Miranda Rights, there is right to silent, anything you said will use against you in the court, right to an attorney, if you cannot afford any attorney police can do it for you and also suspects can waive …show more content…
For example, a suspect has been questioned in police station cannot use the Miranda Rights because according to Supreme Court he is not arrest as technically (Oregon v. Mathiason). Even a driver questioned in traffic by police also cannot use Miranda Rights because he is not questioned in a police station. There is also the inevitable discovery exception. According to this if prosecutor can convince the judge like if he observe the Miranda Rights but there is also discover things, the evidence which is taken by without Miranda Rights can be accepted.
In Oregon v. Elstad (1985), the police received a confess by suspect without mention about the Miranda Rights and then he remebered the Miranda Rights and he told him his rights so suspect could not take back his confession and he lost right to deny his confession. The first confession invalid and the second confession is valid.
Another stretch situation is about waivering own rights. Colorado v. Spring (1987) case, the criminal waived his rights in one crime but the Supreme Court accept it as in all crimes. It means he cannot use his Miranda Rights in other