ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

1177 Words5 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona
“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 appointed for you.”
To begin with, the background and information on the case law that brought upon the Miranda rights to be read, stated, and understood by the officer to the detainee upon the apprehension of the individual. Miranda v. Arizona case law was decided in 1966 on the date of June the thirteenth. This was the established case law for other rulings to follow in holding accountability to any evidence or confession obtained without the suspect or offender being read and understanding his or her rights to the 5th amendment of “pleading …show more content…

Miranda was arrested for the crimes of kidnapping and rape. These are very serious crimes and allegations. Just because an officer did not tell the individual those four lines of the Miranda rights everything is inadmissible. It should not be inadmissible if the individual committed these crimes and it is proven through confession or evidence such as DNA from a rape test they should be held accountable! The individual made decision and committed a crime and the officer simply didn’t advise him or her of his rights so now that person goes free. What about the victim here, what about his or her right to feel safe and secured; with the Miranda rights law this eliminates that safety to the victim and even the community. By throwing out these cases per say we are bringing threat back in to the community and possibly even towards the victim. As a society we have a right to protection and with releasing these individuals and not holding them accountable at all is not only a slap in the face to the victim, but gives the offender an egoistic attitude that they can get away with …show more content…

He knew how to beat the system and how to turn situations around in his favor. Ernesto had been in the criminal justice system for majority of his life. He had been in trouble from the time he was in grade school in Mesa, Arizona, shortly after his mother died and his father remarried. He was a chronic truant, and had his first criminal conviction when he was in 8th grade. The following year, Miranda was arrested and convicted of burglary, and sentenced to a year in reform school. In 1956, about a month after he was released from the Arizona State Industrial School for Boys, Ernest was walking home one night when he happened to glimpse a nude woman lying on a bed in her home. To Miranda, this was an invitation to enter the home, which he did through the unlocked front door. He got on the bed with the woman, attempted but failed at intercourse, and remained in bed with her until her husband came home and called police. Miranda was returned to reform school for an additional year. He headed to Los Angeles, but the geographic cure didn’t work. Within months he had been arrested on suspicion of armed robbery, although he was not convicted, as well as some minor sex offenses including being caught in the act of being a peeping Tom. After his arrest and two-and-a-half month detention on the armed robbery charges, authorities felt that the people of California would be better off without Ernest Miranda and deported the

Show More
Related
667 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda argued the police had violated his fifth amendment, which states his right to remain silent, and his sixth amendment being the right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored the Escobedo Rule, which is evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession and therefore void in a court of law. His conviction was faulty and Miranda deserved a new trial. He was tried again by the State of Arizona and was found guilty of kidnapping and rape for twenty to thirty years, depending on behavior. Arizona’s arguments claimed that Ernesto Miranda knew all about the police procedures and he negotiated with police officers with immense intelligence and understanding.

Read More
1528 Words | 7 Pages

After the written confession was introduced as evidence and tried in the court case. Miranda’s case then appealed to the Supreme Court, where he stated that he would have never confessed if he would have been read his rights, and given an attorney like he asked. He didn’t argue that his confession was false or coerced, but he did argue that his rights were not read and request for an attorney was denied multiple times. (Greenwood, 5.5) Lawyers from Arizona then proceeded to say that he had not requested for a lawyer nor did he attempt when being interrogated. They also added to that by saying his confession was freely given.

Read More
528 Words | 3 Pages

There is a comfort in knowing that one has a form of representation in a situation like this, and the court argues that Miranda was under pressure during his statement. Throughout history, lawyers were available to the general public to allow the defendants a sense of ease instead of vulnerability to the police. This case shows that achieving this right would have resulted in a different outcome of Miranda’s

Read More
364 Words | 2 Pages

Sometimes it cost money just to have access to your own money. The average ATM fee is around four dollars which may seem like a small price to pay for quick access to cash but it does add up. In his essay, Alex Nym expresses his frustration about ATM fees and how they're so unpredictable (Legal Theft: How Financial Services Inhibit Capitalism). The prices for ATMs have risen substantially within the years. Nym states that the bank is double charging their customers and the cardholders aren’t just charged for withdrawing money from the ATM their also being charged an additional fee from their bank.

Read More
1163 Words | 5 Pages

In this case, those tactics were pushed to the extreme. The interrogators showed complete dominance in order for Miranda to confess. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation declares, “He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). In this examination, the rudiments of investigations over-stepped their “dominance” and nearly forced a confession. The accused must be informed of their rights to avoid this mistreatment, otherwise the person suspected is practically compelled to speak, even though they might not do so normally (Document G).

Read More
861 Words | 4 Pages

The case Miranda V. Arizona was an interesting case to read about because it changed the way police informed people their rights while arresting them. This case presents a conflict of police not informing Ernesto Miranda about his 14th and 15th Amendment and did not notify the defendant about his constitutional rights against self incrimination under the fifth amendment. This became a big issue as then miranda’s attorney provided written confession as an evidence to show that he was not informed about his fifth amendment. I believe that police should inform people about their rights before arresting them because it falls under our amendments and you cannot break those amendments. Ernesto Miranda was a man that was arrested and locked up in

Read More
440 Words | 2 Pages

The Supreme Court stated that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not ask to hear them(Miranda v. Arizona). By not hearing all of his rights Miranda would not be able to successfully win the trial. Even though Miranda wrote his confession under the statement saying that he was completely aware of his rights, his lawyers argued that his rights were not fully explained to him. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 under Earl Warren. They agreed that Miranda’s confessions could not be used as evidence in the crime because

Read More
883 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).

Read More
1023 Words | 5 Pages

The outcome of this case made sure that every person who was arrested and put under the custody of the police had to read their Miranda rights and therefore made known of their Fifth Amendment rights. This case would change the procedure of every legal arrest from that point on, and ensure that any person under the custody of the police would be fully aware of their

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that a defendant, “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate

Read More
554 Words | 3 Pages

The Miranda rights must be read to anyone being detained and questioned by law enforcement. It became law that these rights must be read for any interrogation while the accused is in custody. There is a difference between be detained and willingly going to the police station. If they person volunteers to go in for questioning, they are not awarded the same

Read More
928 Words | 4 Pages

The Miranda vs. Arizona court case ruled that detained criminal suspects , prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self incrimination, the case was one

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

Read More
714 Words | 3 Pages

At the same time police officers now can’t abuse their power during interrogations and force a conviction out of a suspect in custody. Roscoe C. Howard Jr. also state, “ The Miranda majority took great pains to trace the history of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and demonstrate that its application to custodial interrogations was rooted in the Constitution.” Based on Howard Jr.’s quote, the Miranda Rights are traced back to the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. No where in the U.S constitution does it say anything about Miranda Rights. However, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and by interpreting the Fifth Amendment of the constitution, the court created the Miranda Warning standard.

Read More
471 Words | 2 Pages

America is a great place with all its laws to secure people and anyone that wants to come into the country. Some people believe that the laws can be confusing, harsh, or don't work at all. On occasion sometimes the police disobey certain rights and that's when things turn from bad to worse. The Miranda Rights are perfect as written in print because they protect the suspect, it has already been

Read More

More about Miranda Vs Arizona Research Paper

Related Topics

Open Document