ipl-logo

Why Do We Obey Miranda Rights?

502 Words3 Pages

Why do we obey the Miranda Rights? We obey the Miranda Rights because it 's the law and if people do not obey them then they will get into major trouble. The Miranda Rights are important because it 's more than words. It is more than words because miranda rights are laws that anyone that is everyone must obey them or they will be sent to a court of law and be judged whether or not the person being convicted of the crime should be released or thrown in jail. We get thrown in jail because of the bad things we do as a person such as: stealing from a store, having illegal items, have any number of slaves in your house, etc. Miranda Rights Meaning Right to Remain Silent Lawyers during questionings Miranda Rights: More than Words …show more content…

The person who is getting arrested must remain silent during the arrest and as well as being in the police car. Police are supposed to say this during an arrest because whatever the person says can be used against them in the court of law. The right to remain silent means people do not have to talk while something is taking place. After the police say this they tell the person what it means and why they tell them this. When they tell people this it means they are reading the person their rights to them. What is the reason we have lawyers during anything to do with the police or the court system. Lawyers are usually present during questionings. A lawyer is present to try and change the jury 's decision. Lawyers are present during interrogations to convince the cops the person is innocent. If someone can 't afford an attorney one is appointed to the person. The court found it necessary to mandate notice to defendants about their constitutional rights. The complete meaning and reason of Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are used during anything involving the police or court. The Right to Remain silent during an arrest. Lawyers are present during most cases with the police/court. This whole essay is about how the cops and courts are here to

Show More
Related
1553 Words | 7 Pages

Any statement given can be the determining outcome of any case. It is imperative that any custodial interrogation is given upon certain circumstance dependent on the Miranda warning is it is integral part of the criminal justice system, as we know today. The rationale is also important as it provides protection for the defendants and for police and prosecutors in which is the reason Miranda warning should be invariably given regardless of

Read More
1089 Words | 5 Pages

In the case of Miranda, having the defendant being subjugated to punishment when they weren’t given vital information like their rights, indeed unjust. The Miranda rights following the Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 are stated my police when arrested suspects and when suspects are being questioned. This prevents information being wrongfully coerced from suspects and entitles suspects to an attorney. Whether a suspect or defendant knows their Miranda rights or not could mean

Read More
624 Words | 3 Pages

The use of motorcycles took over the use of cars because they were so easy to maintain and they were smaller and faster, also radios were used on the job for communication between officers. Although many mistakes have been made throughout policing history, we have been able to improve law enforcement dramatically by innovating new ideas and skills to the current system by trial and error. One big method of improvement in law enforcement is shown in the case of Ernesto Miranda Vs. The State of Arizona. Prior to the police interrogations, the defendant has the right to be informed of their rights to an attorney and

Read More
345 Words | 2 Pages

the, 5th amendment of the United States Constitution by enforcing Due Process, the rights of the accused and the right to counsel. Ernesto Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona in 1941. (Hogrogian, J. p.103) Ernesto Miranda lived a troublesome youth. At the age of fifteen he was convicted of stealing a car, later arrested for trying to rape a woman and arrested six times by the age of eighteen. (Burgan, M. p. 16) It was not until March 3, 1963 when an assault would lead Ernesto Miranda as the main suspect in what would turn out to be a landmark Supreme Court case.

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
1630 Words | 7 Pages

 These apply in most criminal cases and can often form the basis of the defendant’s defense. Many of these can be found directly in the original text articles of the constitution.   Now just like the Miranda rights that police officers must say when making an arrest while in custody prisoners still have their rights too. Like this one, one rule states that; In many situations, criminal suspects may have false confidence that they can handle the matter on their own, without the assistance of an attorney.

Read More
401 Words | 2 Pages

The Bill of Rights, the document that gives us our rights, and helped formed today’s society. But it wasn’t always as spread out and fundamental as it is today. Over the years, the Supreme Court has extended our rights in many ways. The Miranda vs. Arizona and Gideon vs. Wainright are just a few examples of the Bill of Rights’ extension. First and foremost, the Amendments addressing rights related to court weren’t always fundamental, but were only in use for federal hearings.

Read More
296 Words | 2 Pages

Miranda warnings are intended to ensure that an American citizen is aware of his or her constitutional rights in the event of being questioned by the police. The Miranda warning is not required in every situation, only when an individual is in police custody or being interrogated. In 1984 the case of New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court approved one specific circumstance when it was appropriate not to give a Miranda warning; and it’s exactly what the name suggests. According to the Public Safety Exception, the police can question a suspect without giving him his Miranda warning if he could have information concerning immediate threats to public safety.

Read More
1263 Words | 6 Pages

Another civil liberty portrayed in the film V for Vendetta is pleading the fifth. It is well known that the Miranda rights within the U.S. are delivered to the person who is being taken into custody by police officials. Failure to deliver this warning to the criminal the prosecutor is unable to take the evidence that was said into consideration in the courtroom. Aside from knowing there are exceptions to this rule, our rights should always be protected and not manipulated. Although it is perceived that the government captures and interrogates Evey to provide information on V is a hoax planned by V himself, in reality they may have done the same if not worse had they found her.

Read More
1478 Words | 6 Pages

Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.

Read More
790 Words | 4 Pages

Question 6 The ruling rendered by the Supreme Court was in support of the accused party, Ernesto Miranda. The court ruled that the safeguard provided by the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination, necessitates informing individuals in custody about their rights before undergoing police interrogation (Nolan,2021, p.161). The court rendered a decision deeming Miranda’s confession as inadmissible as evidence due to its acquisition in the absence of being apprised of his entitlement to refrain from self-incrimination and to have legal counsel present.

Read More
798 Words | 4 Pages

When it comes to policing there is a huge struggle power struggle between individual rights and public order. You want to keep individual rights, but you also want to keep public order while keeping the public safe. It may seem hard to keep the balance between these two, but doing so is of utter importance. Here are some examples of why it can be hard to balance individual rights and public order when dealing with policing.

Read More
568 Words | 3 Pages

The Miranda Rights were put in place to make sure any person who is placed under arrest, is informed of their rights. A suspect should only be read their rights when legally required, such as when an official arrest is made, or when the person being questioned is a juvenile. Exigent circumstances can grant an officer the ability to bypass reading of The Miranda Rights to a suspect. Page Break In 1966 the Miranda Rights were established to insure a person who is under arrest is aware of their rights, which is due to the United States Supreme Court case Miranda V. Arizona.

Read More
1055 Words | 5 Pages

Arizon was that the Court needed to decide when and how the suspects could have constitutional rights. There were so many problems in regard to this issue, for example, should the suspects keep silence all the time or just during the trial? In order to clarify these questions, the the Supreme Court released the decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warnings are established as followings: Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed (Sidlow & Henschen,

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

More about Why Do We Obey Miranda Rights?

Open Document