This paper is in reference to Miranda Rights. The information contained in this paper came from online researched from multiple web-sites.
In 1963 Emesto Miranda was arrested for a crime and then admitted to another crime. Miranda did not know was not aware of his rights, therefore the creation of Miranda rights.
The pro’s and con’s. first, I will talk about the Con’s of reading the Miranda Rights.
Everyone has the right to be remain silent, hire an attorney and if a someone can’t afford an attorney the courts will appoint one to them. Many argue that the bill of rights pertains to notifying citizens of their rights. If someone is arrested or brought in for questioning does not have to say word. Some argue the bill of right does not read that police have to notify people of their rights.
Before the Miranda …show more content…
If a person is arrested for arson or murder, the Miranda Rights should be read. Even if the officer does everything right, obtaining warrants included, at the hearing the defense attorney can argue his defendant didn’t know his rights. The case could possibly be dismissed.
By police having to read the Miranda Rights hinders the investigation allot. Even if a person is not guilty of a crime, but is questioned for their knowledge can impact an investigation.
The pros of reading the Miranda Rights. Allot of people are not paying attention when they are read, but police can testify that they were read. Allot of people don’t know their rights even when they are read, so they will still provide information on a case.
If someone refused to answer any questions after the Miranda Rights have been read. The police can assume the person is hiding something and lead them to investigate that person further.
People that witness a crime or are involved but didn’t commit the crime, will still answer most questions, after being read their
In 1963 Emesto Miranda was arrested for a crime and then admitted to another crime. Miranda did not know was not aware of his rights, therefore the creation of Miranda rights.
The pro’s and con’s. first, I will talk about the Con’s of reading the Miranda Rights.
Everyone has the right to be remain silent, hire an attorney and if a someone can’t afford an attorney the courts will appoint one to them. Many argue that the bill of rights pertains to notifying citizens of their rights. If someone is arrested or brought in for questioning does not have to say word. Some argue the bill of right does not read that police have to notify people of their rights.
Before the Miranda …show more content…
If a person is arrested for arson or murder, the Miranda Rights should be read. Even if the officer does everything right, obtaining warrants included, at the hearing the defense attorney can argue his defendant didn’t know his rights. The case could possibly be dismissed.
By police having to read the Miranda Rights hinders the investigation allot. Even if a person is not guilty of a crime, but is questioned for their knowledge can impact an investigation.
The pros of reading the Miranda Rights. Allot of people are not paying attention when they are read, but police can testify that they were read. Allot of people don’t know their rights even when they are read, so they will still provide information on a case.
If someone refused to answer any questions after the Miranda Rights have been read. The police can assume the person is hiding something and lead them to investigate that person further.
People that witness a crime or are involved but didn’t commit the crime, will still answer most questions, after being read their