People always hear police officers on TV say, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you." These are very important words that police officers say to people who have been arrested or have been put up for interrogation. These are referred to as the Miranda Rights or Miranda Warnings. The Miranda Rights are used to inform people of their rights before they are questioned about criminal hours. Reading people a very specific script describing their rights ensures that are informed of how their words can be used and how they may protect themselves by remaining silent or waiting for an attorney before speaking. Miranda Warnings have become a vital form of protection in criminal law.
The name of the rights comes from Ernesto Miranda. The story is written on www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ and information about Ernesto Miranda is written on www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-miranda-rights-are-established. He was a convicted rapist who had no idea of his rights as he was being convicted. He then sued the state of Arizona in 1966 because of a violation of his rights. Then after the case, it became a common law to state the Miranda Warnings before pursuing somebody. It was thought to be an ephemeral idea, however it has lasted for more than half a century. That however was not the first case to debate the 5th amendment. There are more of these cases explained on civilliberty.about.com/. For example, before that, there was Blockburger v. The United States in 1932, where it made sure that if one crime was committed, the criminal will be tried for each law broken. After that, there was Chambers v. Florida. In Chambers v. Florida, four black men were accused of crimes, and were forced to admit them under extreme duress, causing the unknown right to remain silent. After that, in 1944, there was Ashcraft v. Tennessee. That was a 38-hour forced interrogation, where the suspect was threatened to confess, so they had to. The court ruled that confessions drawn by violence, threats, or force shall be less recognized for the prosecutorial verdict. All of that lead up to suing the State of Arizona for miscommunicating his rights. The court ruled in the favor of stating the rights of those who are needed for questioning. But when typical people read that, they wonder what the Miranda Rights are. With the Miranda Warnings, people have the right the accused can remain silent, which means to remain silent for any question anyone doesn’t want to answer. The accused has the right to an attorney, and one will be provided to those who cannot afford one. With these rights in place, anyone can abstain from answering any question. One is also able to “plead the fifth”: which refers …show more content…
First off, if the Miranda Rights are misspoken, added to, or detracted from, one may report that to the judge, and the judge may dismiss the charges due to adding or detracting from the legal rights. If the Miranda Rights are misheard, one must inform the officer that they cannot hear them, in which case they have to start over. If they do not report that they didn’t hear it correctly, their case is still at fault if they make an unlawful confession. If the officer fails to advise them of their rights, their rights are not necessary, and all charges from the prosecuting party are invalid. For example, if John Doe is in custody, they do not read out the Miranda Rights. They ask John about a certain crime of vandalism. Not knowing he has the right to remain silent, he gives a description of how he vandalized the area. He goes into court, with the prosecuting party having an advantage because John Doe admitted his crime. Luckily, he has a good attorney who points out that they did not read out his Miranda Rights to him. The judge realizes that his admission was unlawful, and so they take away all charges from the prosecutors. John Doe has admitted unlawfully to his crimes, and he walks out of the case without charges. If he had been informed of his rights, John could have remained silent, and let the prosecutors use that against him. These rights always help to ensure justice, along with having the people’s rights in
The name of the rights comes from Ernesto Miranda. The story is written on www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ and information about Ernesto Miranda is written on www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-miranda-rights-are-established. He was a convicted rapist who had no idea of his rights as he was being convicted. He then sued the state of Arizona in 1966 because of a violation of his rights. Then after the case, it became a common law to state the Miranda Warnings before pursuing somebody. It was thought to be an ephemeral idea, however it has lasted for more than half a century. That however was not the first case to debate the 5th amendment. There are more of these cases explained on civilliberty.about.com/. For example, before that, there was Blockburger v. The United States in 1932, where it made sure that if one crime was committed, the criminal will be tried for each law broken. After that, there was Chambers v. Florida. In Chambers v. Florida, four black men were accused of crimes, and were forced to admit them under extreme duress, causing the unknown right to remain silent. After that, in 1944, there was Ashcraft v. Tennessee. That was a 38-hour forced interrogation, where the suspect was threatened to confess, so they had to. The court ruled that confessions drawn by violence, threats, or force shall be less recognized for the prosecutorial verdict. All of that lead up to suing the State of Arizona for miscommunicating his rights. The court ruled in the favor of stating the rights of those who are needed for questioning. But when typical people read that, they wonder what the Miranda Rights are. With the Miranda Warnings, people have the right the accused can remain silent, which means to remain silent for any question anyone doesn’t want to answer. The accused has the right to an attorney, and one will be provided to those who cannot afford one. With these rights in place, anyone can abstain from answering any question. One is also able to “plead the fifth”: which refers …show more content…
First off, if the Miranda Rights are misspoken, added to, or detracted from, one may report that to the judge, and the judge may dismiss the charges due to adding or detracting from the legal rights. If the Miranda Rights are misheard, one must inform the officer that they cannot hear them, in which case they have to start over. If they do not report that they didn’t hear it correctly, their case is still at fault if they make an unlawful confession. If the officer fails to advise them of their rights, their rights are not necessary, and all charges from the prosecuting party are invalid. For example, if John Doe is in custody, they do not read out the Miranda Rights. They ask John about a certain crime of vandalism. Not knowing he has the right to remain silent, he gives a description of how he vandalized the area. He goes into court, with the prosecuting party having an advantage because John Doe admitted his crime. Luckily, he has a good attorney who points out that they did not read out his Miranda Rights to him. The judge realizes that his admission was unlawful, and so they take away all charges from the prosecutors. John Doe has admitted unlawfully to his crimes, and he walks out of the case without charges. If he had been informed of his rights, John could have remained silent, and let the prosecutors use that against him. These rights always help to ensure justice, along with having the people’s rights in