Miranda Warning Dbq

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been. The Miranda warning was established to fully complete the legal promise of self-incrimination

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). These rules consist of the investigator relentlessly questioning the suspect for hours without leaving the subject, besides for the basic rights granted to an individual besides stopping periodically for food and

Arizona case like certain colonial laws and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, many ignored the precedent and subjected individuals to torture and other inhumane interrogation tactics to acquire confessions from accused individuals. The Miranda v. Arizona case specified that the accused must be read their rights to prevent self-incrimination to prevent false confessions that stemmed from coercion, which had not been explicitly stated in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Therefore, the Miranda v. Arizona case served to fully complete the legal promise of self-incrimination that had already been guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights and previous