Arizona Vs Miranda Essay

The legal case of Arizona v. Miranda, which took place in 1966, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that had a profound impact on criminal procedure in the country. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, a man who had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The overall issue of the case was the admissibility of the confession that Miranda had made to the police during his interrogation, which had been obtained without informing him of his constitutional rights. The court ultimately ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence against him, as the police had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This decision led to the creation of what today is known

Miranda was a pivotal case that helped to establish and protect the rights of individuals in the criminal justice system, and its legacy continues to be felt today. Undeniably, police officers’ main task is to assure everyone is safe and protected at all costs but we must always acknowledge that are our actions should always follow the fundamentals in which we are allowed to act upon. The police officers during the interrogation held Miranda in a room where they were able to get Miranda confess to incriminating crime, the overall span of the interrogation took approximately two hours, and after everything they still manage to get Miranda to sign the written confession. In the eyes of the police officer, they believed they did the right thing because they manage to get the bad person off the street, preventing from another individual being hurt by Miranda but yet their actions also broke some rules. During the whole time of the interrogation, both the officers were aware that they had not read Miranda his rights, not once within the two hours did they decide to stop and advise Miranda of his right or even hint at an individual’s rights to counseling being providing before the actual interrogation or against self-incrimination. As per the 5th Amendment, it prevents against self-incrimination and double jeopardy and the 6th Amendment emphasizes on Criminal Prosecutions, where individuals have the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, to

Based on his confession, he committed unpleasant acts of kidnapping and rape and there’s no justifying this. Evaluating what the officers did is also wrong, they knew what they were doing the entire time and neither one of them decided to stop and tried to do the right thing, their actions are also unjustifiable because they’re supposed to be enforcers of law. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and that’s what happened here, if the officers initially had advise Miranda of his rights, his confession could’ve been admissible in court when Miranda was on trial and they could’ve put away a rapist for life. In regard to the overturn of the first trial decision, I don’t think that they made the correct choice ethically because they released a kidnapper, someone who may be a threat to everyone’s overall wellbeing and can be someone who may offend again. On the other hand, as an individual who is protect under our rights, there’s no denying the fact that his rights were violated and that doesn’t justify how someone should be treated. Everyone is entitled to be treated fair and under constitutional rights no matter the circumstance, as police officers you’re supposed to enforce the law, not break it because you have the ability and power to do