“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”- The Miranda Warning. As citizens of the United States, we possess a plethora of rights, which are absolutely paramount to our freedom as citizens of the United States; however, our Miranda Rights are often misunderstood or unused by citizens of the United States. I believe that as citizens of the United States we need the Miranda Rights because the Fifth Amendment guarantees that United States citizens cannot be compelled to testify
…show more content…
The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from having to testify if doing so will incriminate themselves in the process; however, until the precedent setting ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, by the Supreme Court, the Fifth Amendment only extended into the courtroom. When Ernesto Miranda was arrested, interrogated, and made to give a written confession to a kidnapping and sexual assault in Arizona, he was charged with 20-30 years on each count. Miranda went to the Supreme Court of Arizona where it was decided that his constitutional rights were not infringed upon, but the case soon went to the Supreme Court of The United States of America. After a vote of 5-4 on June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves” because “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so
The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from having to testify if doing so will incriminate themselves in the process; however, until the precedent setting ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, by the Supreme Court, the Fifth Amendment only extended into the courtroom. When Ernesto Miranda was arrested, interrogated, and made to give a written confession to a kidnapping and sexual assault in Arizona, he was charged with 20-30 years on each count. Miranda went to the Supreme Court of Arizona where it was decided that his constitutional rights were not infringed upon, but the case soon went to the Supreme Court of The United States of America. After a vote of 5-4 on June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves” because “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so