Miranda Vs. Arizona. The Supreme Court Decision Detailed The Principles Governing Police Interrogation: The Miranda Rights.

1505 words - 6 pages

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."- PlatoThe Miranda rule, which makes a confession inadmissible in a criminal trial if the accused was not properly advised of his rights, has been so thoroughly integrated into the justice system that any person who watches television can recite the words: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". Yet the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona remains the subject of debate, and has had a great impact on law enforcement in the U.S.On March 13, 1963, eight dollars in cash was stolen from a Phoenix, Arizona bank worker. Eleven days earlier, in Phoenix, Arizona, an 18-year-old mentally disturbed woman was kidnapped and raped. Police detained Ernesto Miranda, a 23-year-old man, for committing the theft but did not have a suspect in the rape case. Ernesto Miranda was questioned on the theft charge, without being offered an attorney. During questioning, he confessed not only to the theft, but also to kidnapping and raping an eighteen-year-old woman eleven days earlier. He was subsequently arrested, convicted of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to twenty years in prison.However, when Miranda was arrested he was not advised of his rights as they are declared in the Fifth Amendment. "According to the Fifth Amendment, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (Amar). Simply stated, the Fifth Amendment outlines that anyone who is arrested in the United States has certain rights and privileges that should be spelled out for them at the time of the arrest.On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Miranda vs. Arizona, reversed the Arizona Court's decision, granted Miranda a new trial at which his confession could not be admitted as evidence, and established the "Miranda" rights of persons accused of crimes. On appeal, Miranda's lawyers pointed out that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by an attorney, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, Miranda was not told that anything that he said could be used against him. The United State's Supreme Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights. Although Ernesto Miranda's conviction was thrown out, the police had other...

Find Another Essay On Miranda Vs. Arizona. The Supreme Court decision detailed the principles governing police interrogation: The Miranda Rights.

Miranda vs. Arizona Essay

600 words - 2 pages Miranda vs. Arizona:      This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that

Miranda Vs Arizona; Rights and Responsibility

866 words - 4 pages conviction was overturned. Now not only did people actually have the rights that were written in our Constitution. But also, now the police officers had the responsibility to actually read you those rights and make sure you understood you had those rights. If they do not read you your Miranda rights at the time of arrest, you may actually fight it in the court of law. Work Cited McBride, Alex, “Miranda V. Arizona (1966).” “Facts and Case Summary” U.S.Courts.gov (What are your Miranda Rights? , web, 2009).

The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona

1781 words - 8 pages all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were

The Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona

1918 words - 8 pages all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were

Protecting the Defendant with Miranda Rights

1168 words - 5 pages Rights." MirandaWarning.org. MirandaWarning.org. Web. 13 Nov 2013. "Landmark: Brown v. Board of Education." LDF: Defend, Educate, Empower. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Web. 27 Feb 2014. McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." The Supreme Court. Thirteen/WNET New York, n.d. Web. 14 Nov 2013. "Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Web. 17 Mar 2014. Negro Paper Honors Nine For Civil Rights

Miranda Rule and the Fifth Amendment Rights

1990 words - 8 pages Miranda right. The Supreme Court held and appealed the case and argues that a routine traffic stop does not constitute custodial interrogation, so there is no need to give the Miranda warning. As seen with the Berkemer v. McCarty case, the Miranda rule only applies when the criminal is in police custody or under interrogation. An actual arrest must take place before a Miranda warning; meaning, a traffic routine stop questioning does not warrant

Miranda Rights

1521 words - 6 pages Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The Miranda v Arizona case was combined with three other similar cases. When the Supreme Court handed down the decision 5-4 in Miranda's favor, the resulting rights afforded to those being questioned or detained by police became popularly known as Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights must include the following as described by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren:1. You have the right to remain silent.2. Anything you

Miranda Rights

746 words - 3 pages lawyer's advice and he was convicted and sentenced. Three years later Miranda's appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The court had made its decision to make procedural requirements that the law enforcement must follow, which overturned Miranda's conviction. Miranda v. Arizona caused a list, which the police must deliver to criminal suspects in the process of being questioned. Miranda was tried again and convicted. The prosecution team

Miranda Rights

1328 words - 5 pages was used in court against him. Miranda was undoubtedly found guilty.      Miranda v Arizona went all the way to the Supreme Court. There the Supreme Court ruled that the police do have a responsibility to inform a subject of an interrogation of their constitutional rights. The constitutional rights have to do with self-incrimination, and the right to counsel before, during and after questioning.      What does this mean to you? Well if

Miranda v. Arizona

1293 words - 6 pages Miranda VS Arizona In 1966, American police procedure was changed by what is known today as the Miranda Rights. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a twenty three year old Hispanic American with an eighth grade education was arrested for kidnap and rape. (Paddock) He was identified by the victim of the crime in a police lineup. After he was identified, he was taken into police interrogation for two hours. When he was arrested, he was not informed of his

Miranda v. Arizona

1206 words - 5 pages Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark case because now almost everybody knows about this case because of the Miranda Rights that were a direct result of this case, and the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Supreme Courts ruling that it was against Miranda’s rights, then because of this decision they made the Miranda Rights. The Supreme Court was correct in the ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, which they ruled in favor of Ernesto Miranda because his fifth

Similar Essays

The Case, Miranda Vs. Arizona Essay

810 words - 3 pages -1-Of all the cases in the Supreme Court there seem to be some that just more people seem to talk about as having a big part in American history. One of these court cases I feel would have to be the Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.Ernesto Arthur Miranda was arrested in his home of Phoenix, Arizona in the year 1966. He was accused of kidnaping and raping a Phoenix, Arizona, woman. Apparently when he was arrested he had not read his rights given

How The Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Spurred The Supreme Court To Specifically Outline The Necessary Aspects Of Police Warnings To Suspects

1215 words - 5 pages lawyers called attention to the fact that the police had never told Miranda that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, Miranda was not told that everything that he said could be used against him. In conclusion, the United State's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant by only a 5 to 4 majority. The Supreme Court decision detailed the principles governing police

The Miranda Decision Essay

1769 words - 7 pages The Miranda Decision In 1966, the U. S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda decision was a departure from the established law in the area of police interrogation. Prior to Miranda, a confession would be suppressed only if a court determined it resulted from some actual coercion, threat, or promise. The Miranda decision was intended to protect suspects of their 5th Amendment right of no

The Right To Appointed Counsel In Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court Prior To Miranda V. Arizona (1966)

1804 words - 7 pages The right to appointed counsel in decisions of the United States Supreme Court prior to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) From the Judiciary Act to incorporation doctrine In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the US Supreme Court stated in the name of Chief Justice Earl Warren that “…He [accused] 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