ipl-logo

Argument Against The Miranda Warning

412 Words2 Pages

The Miranda Warning, or more commonly known as your Miranda Rights, is a right to remain silent, amidst other rights, given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated. Miranda Rights are there to provide admissibility of the arrested criminals statement in the court of law. Students should not be given a Miranda type warning by the school personnel because they are not being arrested and the principal does not have the authority since it is only a discipline matter. First off, students should not be given a Miranda type warning by the school personnel because they are not being arrested. The function of the Miranda rights are to caution people on their rights while in custody to assure their testimony is useable in the court of law. Most of the statements in the Miranda warning do not apply to students about a disciplinary matter. For example, one typical …show more content…

Principals may have vast authority in a school, but they do not have the same amount of authority as police officers do. A principal giving a student a Miranda type reading would be out of their jurisdiction. Students do not need to speak during this time, and many do not, therefore the principal does not need to extend their power to that of a police officer by reading a student their Miranda Warning. The Miranda Warning was created for informing criminals of their rights upon the time of their arrest, not for students. If a student was read a Miranda type warning it would just further fluster them and escalate the situation. Since the student is not being arrested, they should not be read their Miranda Rights. In addition, the principal does not have the authority to read these rights to a student. A student should not be read their Miranda Rights during the time of questioning over a disciplinary

Show More
Related
762 Words | 4 Pages

It was required that the student's parents be informed of the suspension within 24 hours with given reason. If the student were expelled, they would allowed to appeal to the Board of Education. The principal gave the students suspension without holding a hearing, it was okay because Ohio law did not make it required to do so. But they were also later expelled without a right to have due process. The federal courts believed that the students rights were being violated.

Read More
694 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda’s signed confession included the statement that he was informed of his rights, when in fact he was not.

Read More
496 Words | 2 Pages

GOSS v. LOPEZ, Supreme Court of the United States, 1975. 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42, L.Ed.2d 725 deals with students that were suspended. The Columbus Ohio Public School System (CPSS) was sued by students. Nine students claimed that they were suspended without being given a hearing before their suspension, or even after their suspensions were over.

Read More
581 Words | 3 Pages

According to Time Magazine, “without these Miranda warnings, the court deemed, prosecutors could not use statements made by defendants under interrogation” (TIME). The following opinion was written by Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Stewart and White, “But the basic flaws in the Court's justification seem to me readily apparent now once all sides of the problem are

Read More
138 Words | 1 Pages

Finally the author stated sometimes officers are put in uncomfortable positions when the student can’t be controlled by the teacher. Although, when students misbehave we don’t need to arrest them, we need to keep them in

Read More
845 Words | 4 Pages

These mandatory "Miranda Rights" begin with "you have the right to remain silent, anything said can and will be used against you in a court of law. " The police are to enforce this and inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for a defendant's attorney to accompany them during interrogations. If they can't afford an attorney, the court must assign one to them. These are the rights denied to Miranda when he signed a statement and confessed, illegally admitting him to

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
1087 Words | 5 Pages

In the earlier paragraph I stated that our Miranda rights are the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, the right to an attorney, if you can not afford an attorney one will be provided for you. The reason police have to tell a person these before detaining or questioning is because if they gain a statement or confession without telling a suspect their Miranda rights those statements are no longer valid in any court of law. This is exactly what happened in the Miranda V. Arizona case. Miranda was detained by police for questioning and gave a written confession after two hours of custodial questioning. Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and killing a girl and was sentenced to twenty five to thirty years in jail.

Read More
1023 Words | 5 Pages

Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).

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
579 Words | 3 Pages

Although Perry believes that “students don’t need special warnings before

Read More
1549 Words | 7 Pages

For example , "law students [are] asking her fellow professors at Harvardnot to teach rape law... [or] use the word violate... lest it cause students distress" (Hardt and Lukianoff 44). Students have completely twisted the meaning of trigger warnings that they are using that excuse to demand ridiculously things that make no sense. The example of the students not wanting to learn rape law because it causes distress is

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
501 Words | 3 Pages

The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

Read More
1942 Words | 8 Pages

Law enforcement presence in schools is a topic that has been spoken about by many researchers throughout the years and has brought up a lot of controversial thoughts and ideas. Many researchers that have conducted research that is related to this topic have mentioned how they came across studies that made them come up with conclusions about school law enforcement officers that were rather mixed than geared towards one side of the spectrum (Bracy, 2010). The studies that I looked into were very similar in that many of them looked down upon the idea of having law enforcement officers present in schools, while a small handful felt that it has more pros than it does cons. Na and Gottfredson (2013), for example, conducted a study in which they

Read More

More about Argument Against The Miranda Warning

Related Topics

Open Document