Miranda Vs Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona: Impacting Criminal Justice Policy The role the United States court system plays in the creation and implementation of criminal justice policy is far reaching and powerful. And when the court deciding an issue is the highest in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, the impact of the decision on the entire criminal justice system can be profound. Such is the case of Miranda v. Arizona, a landmark decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1966 that continues to impact how justice is meted in our country today.
The Case of Ernesto Miranda One of the most well-known Supreme Court decisions began in 1963 with the arrest of 23- year-old Phoenix, Arizona resident Ernesto Miranda. Miranda, a man who

Miranda was retried and again found guilty. At the second trial, a former girlfriend testified that he had told her about kidnapping and raping the 18-year-old in 1963. He was paroled in
1972 and was in and out of prison until he was killed in a stabbing at a bar when Miranda was 34 years old. No one was ever charged with his death (Cassell, 1998).

The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona

When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s

confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an

attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would

have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that

police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure

suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a

right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation

of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not immediately informed of his Miranda rights, although he was questioned by police. Under the public-safety exception to the law, law enforcement may question a suspect without invoking Miranda if the police have credible reason to believe the suspect may have information about an imminent threat to public safety. Once he was read his Miranda rights, police said Tsarnaev stopped answering questions (Imbriano, 2013).
Conclusion
Miranda v. Arizona, although nearly 50 years old, stands as one of the most well-known and important Supreme Court rulings. The law, which attempts to balance the rights of the individual with the ability of law enforcement to solve crimes and keep the public safe, has been challenged, upheld, revised, and challenged again through the years. Miranda is a fluid law that may be adjusted to meet the needs of a changing society, but will always represent the need to keep fairness and balance in America’s judicial