“No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him, except by the legal judgement of his peers or by the law of the land” (The Magna Carta). Clause thirty-nine of the Magna Carta, written in 1215, establishes Western society 's desire for equal and fair representation in regards to the legal system. When the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were forming the Constitution, fair representation, for white males, was of great importance. This is a continuing theme throughout the ever-developing American society and can be seen in the amendments made to the Constitution. The 1966 Supreme Court decision of Miranda v. Arizona under Chief Justice
…show more content…
Arizona established rights to protect a suspect from self-incrimination whilst in police custody and interrogation. However, far too often, suspects are coerced into releasing information they otherwise would not. This is often due to the vague wording of the Miranda Rights; “a voluntary, freely given, intelligent, and knowing confession” (Miranda). The 1991 Supreme Court case of Arizona v. Fulminate further illuminates the issues regarding the ambiguity of the Miranda Rights. Oreste Fulminante was incarcerated in a New York federal prison for possessing a weapon that was provided to him by a known felon. The police suspected that he had murdered his eleven year old daughter, but they had no evidence to convict him of this crime. Whilst in prison, Fulminante befriended Anthony Sarivola, a former police officer. Sarivola was an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and gained Fulminante’s confession to his daughter 's murder, which was then used to convict him. The Supreme Court upheld that the confession was coerced and therefore could not be used to incriminate Fulminante. The Supreme Court used the precedents presented in Bram v. United States, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, and Chapman v. California to decide the outcome of Arizona v. Fulminate (Arizona). The ambiguous wording of the Miranda Rights could possibly lead to a guilty man walking
Arizona established rights to protect a suspect from self-incrimination whilst in police custody and interrogation. However, far too often, suspects are coerced into releasing information they otherwise would not. This is often due to the vague wording of the Miranda Rights; “a voluntary, freely given, intelligent, and knowing confession” (Miranda). The 1991 Supreme Court case of Arizona v. Fulminate further illuminates the issues regarding the ambiguity of the Miranda Rights. Oreste Fulminante was incarcerated in a New York federal prison for possessing a weapon that was provided to him by a known felon. The police suspected that he had murdered his eleven year old daughter, but they had no evidence to convict him of this crime. Whilst in prison, Fulminante befriended Anthony Sarivola, a former police officer. Sarivola was an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and gained Fulminante’s confession to his daughter 's murder, which was then used to convict him. The Supreme Court upheld that the confession was coerced and therefore could not be used to incriminate Fulminante. The Supreme Court used the precedents presented in Bram v. United States, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, and Chapman v. California to decide the outcome of Arizona v. Fulminate (Arizona). The ambiguous wording of the Miranda Rights could possibly lead to a guilty man walking