Miranda Argumentative Essay

Improved Essays
Imagine standing in front of the Supreme Court demanding for them to change the law so that you can have your own personal rights, and having them listen to you and grant your demand for the good of the country. This is the experience of Ernesto Miranda and his case against Arizona. Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for the kidnapping and rape of a young woman, but when he was arrested the police did not read him his constitutional rights of the 5th and 6th Amendments. They took advantage of him and forced a confession out of him during their interrogation, then used it in court to prove him guilty. He wanted to have been read his right to an attorney and his rights to remain silent, but the law enforcers did not give him that option upon his arrest. He took the case to the Supreme Court to demand his personal rights to hear his privileges as a criminal/suspect. The Supreme Court ruled in favor …show more content…
In the court trials the defendant uses the sixth amendment rights to point out Miranda’s “to have the assistance of counsel for his defence” (amend. VI). The Sixth amendment speaks of the right to a lawyer in court for the criminal, and how it is his/her specific right to representation in court, and that doesn’t affect the people outside of the case, so it does not affect the good of the citizens. Likewise, the Fifth Amendment is used a great deal in the Supreme Court trials, and it gives the right to remain silent during interrogation. This right is for private interrogation between law enforcers and the suspect, the public is not included in on this event. The rights used to win this case were specifically for the individual criminal(s) that were being interrogated and put on trial, and the public would not be affected either way, they are personal and individual

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda Rights help protect citizens fifth and sixth amendments. The fifth amendment protects citizens from being forced to be witness against himself, while the sixth amendment assures that those arrested have a right to a public and speedy trial (Doc E). Together, the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination and the sixth amendment assures that those arrested can not be held in jail indefinitely. The Miranda Warning read by officers specifically states that after one is made aware of their Miranda Rights, any confession or statements can be used against oneself lawfully (Doc J). Consequently, the Miranda ruling assures that one is fully aware of their rights and are also aware of the consequences if they choose to self-incriminate after being read their…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The three parts of the decision went as followed. The first was the Fifth Amendment privilege (which states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury). In this instance, Miranda was basically compelled to be a witness against himself and his confession was obtained in a way that did not meet the constitutional standards. What was also a large factor to this part of the case was that he was not offered or given the right to an attorney to consult with during the interrogation process with the…

    • 1106 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He appealed his case all the way up to the Supreme Court, claiming that the confession had been obtained unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not use Miranda’s confession as evidence because the police had not informed Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right against…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    14th Amendment Dbq

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages

    He then took it to the supreme court and…

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The investigators found a written confession admitting the offense. However, the police officers who arrested Miranda did not advise him to have an attorney during the interrogation. Even though the court charged Miranda for the crimes, the appeal in the Supreme Court of Arizona found no violation of his constitutional rights since he failed to request counsel. The amendment in check was the Fifth Amendment. D. 419 U.S. 565 Goss v. Lopez Argued: October 16, 1974 Decided: January 22,…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    Essay On Fifth Amendment

    • 1549 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The sixth amendment protects the rights for a speedy and public trial and also gives us rights as the accused within the courtroom. All of these rights are there to protect us against any…

    • 1549 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Submitted By: Demetre Alexander Georgia Gwinnett College Abstract The goal of this research paper is to remind people that as long as one can fulfill the duties of being a citizen in the United States of America then there are rights that protect one from the government. One could imagine what the world would be like if there were no Miranda rights. Government would take complete advantage of that and others could assume that prisons would really become overcrowded and taxes would shoot up even higher due to the absence of Miranda rights in the criminal justice system. One could assume that life in fact would not be as sweet and worth living knowing that the police can haul someone into jail and interrogate that person until a confession…

    • 2625 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Arizona, which ruled that the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence brought against a defendant at trial is only admissible if the defendant has been informed of his right against self-incrimination as well as his right to consult with an attorney. This Supreme Court decision was brought about by the conviction of Ernesto Miranda, who provided a confession to police without being informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. The Arizona State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that because he had not been informed of his rights, his rights had not been properly upheld. The key to this decision is the distinction between an informed waiving of those rights, and an uninformed waiving of those rights. If a person is convicted based on self-incrimination, the prosecution must be able to prove that they were explicitly aware of and subsequently waived their rights.…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Arizona (1966). This decision, generally speaking, defined the rights of the accused after an appeal was made on behalf of Ernesto Miranda. It said, among other things, that each person accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney (Document 7). The tradition of these Miranda rights has become common knowledge in American society, despite the fact that some people believe that they are generally too lenient and often hamper the justice system’s ability to convict guilty criminals of their crimes (Documents 5a & 5b). The Supreme Court has failed to see adequate need for reversal of this decision, despite the dramatic odds that lie in favour of the accused as a result of the decision, and the fact that the victim is often left without help when the offender is not convicted.…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Selective Incorporation

    • 1029 Words
    • 5 Pages

    While the ideal example of a democracy places the decisions of government in citizen’s hands, the United States rarely does as such. For example, the Supreme Court, while influenced by public approval and public opinion, isolates itself from the media and public in two specific ways. Its Justices, appointed by the president, are indirect methods for people to get what they want from the highest branch of the Judiciary Branch. Similar to the method and processes used to elect a president through the Electoral College, the Supreme Court works in a way that places the power of the government in educated individuals’ hands as opposed to the direct power of votes in an election for a state governor. It indirectly allows people to influence Court…

    • 1029 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Salinas Vs Texas Summary

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages

    CASE BRIEF Case Name – Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 12 (2013) Facts – Genovevo Salinas, the petitioner, who was not in custody or read Miranda warnings, agreed to go to the police station to answer questions regarding involvement in a murder. When petitioner was asked if ballistic testing would match ammunition casings found at the scene, he remained silent. Petitioner contended that the prosecutors’ use of his silence to indicate guilt violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Procedural History – The petitioner was charged in Texas state court with murder.…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The criminal has the privilege to have a sensible safeguard set for the wrongdoing he or she perpetrated and as indicated by the genuine flight hazard which he or she may force. In 1963 a man known as Ernesto Arturo Miranda was captured of charges he actually admited nightfall of interrigation, and was sentenced, and sentenced 20-30 years. Miranda's court apointed lawyer contended taht he was not educated he has a privilege to insight, and his admission was not volontary. The Arizona Incomparable Court ruled upon this case, and announced that Miranda was unconscious of the rights allowed under the fifth amendent's self implication provision, and the sixth alterations right to a lawyer.…

    • 683 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The right to remain silent is located in Fifth Amendment, and the right to have a presence of attorney is located in the Sixth Amendment of the constitution. The Supreme Court ended up ruling that it was unconstitutional to undertake the interrogation without the warning of the rights secured by the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the court stated that they must protect the individual from the desire to self-incriminate ("Miranda v."). The court created the Miranda Warning which is as follows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In criminal cases , the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy,and protects against self incrimination . It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use. All of your miranda rights are you have the right to remain…

    • 491 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Warren Court Era

    • 1163 Words
    • 5 Pages

    (Richard A. Leo, “The Impact of ‘Miranda’ revisited”) It is important for accused persons to have knowledge of their rights, and to have proper representation. Otherwise, one wrong move and an innocent party might be facing jail time, or worse. Perhaps, someone belonging to a minority that may have been targeted by police wouldn’t have the means to access a lawyer or attorney. Equality before a court provides the opportunity for a much fairer trial for criminal charges and a much better chance for the truly guilty party to be brought to justice.…

    • 1163 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays