Have you ever been watching a movie or a crime T.V. show and there is a police officer arresting someone and saying something along the lines of, “You have the right to remain silent..”? Not only does that happen in shows and movies, it does happen in real life. The Miranda Rights were officially established in 1966 when Ernesto Miranda, was arrested and confessed to his crimes but his confession was later thrown out because the officer who arrested im did not read Miranda his rights. Officially, every police officer who is taking someone into custody must recite the Miranda rights. Now, does Miranda v. Arizona ensure justice and preserve liberty? Some people might say that it does, only for the reason that if you are not read your rights and you confess, it will not be held against you, Miranda v. Arizona can make most of us feel that the first amendment is true, that we do have freedom of speech, and lastly because it gives us the right to decide what to do about the situation.
If you have committed a very minor crime and you get caught, would you confess? Eventually, you would. What if you were not read
…show more content…
Also, so is someone, specifically a person in authority, giving us the freedom of speech. Miranda v. Arizona does just that, when someone reads out the rules to us it can give some a sense of relief. One would think, “Oh great, I do not have to say this if I do not want to.” It does preserve freedom, and liberty, in the sense that we have the choice on whether or not we can confess or not. In one article it states, “...anyone in police custody must be told four things before being questions:” (p.1) and one of them is the famous saying, “you have the right to remain silent,” which means that if you do not want to say anything you have every right not to tell the officer anything. That would give citizens some freedom of speech and we would not be punished for