The Cons And Cons Of The Miranda Vs. Arizona

Before 1966 there was really no right or warning that protected the people and told them what they were entitled to. As we all must have heard "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". This famous warning was created because of the well-known case known as Miranda vs. Arizona. In which Ernesto Miranda from Arizona was convicted of various crimes but was let free. Due to the fact that he was unaware of his rights at the time, so the court was not able to do anything at the time of his trial. The Miranda vs. Arizona case explored the rights of American citizens because it made them question if Americans have too many rights and were if they were being exercised in the wrong way and if so that had to change. Furthermore, Ernesto Miranda had a bad reputation with law enforcement growing up. He lost his mother at …show more content…
This meaning that law enforcement has created and came up with a way to go around the system. So they can ultimately still hurt you one way or another. Another con of the Miranda warning is that sometimes the right does not even have to be read to you. For instance “… a cop doesn 't routinely "read you your rights" when he arrests you—because it 's not necessary in most cases" (pandullo). This goes to show that your Miranda warning is not that significant that it sometimes does not have to be read to you. So you are not able to know your rights at the time. This can be consequential to you at the time of court. The warning is usually only read to you when you in a case that will involve several court cases. If you have been convicted of first degree murder, rape, and any other hard crime that would put you behind bars for yours to come. If the case is not to significant it is really pointless to have them read to