Miranda V. Arizona
This infamous Supreme Court case of 1966 deals with the rights of accused. This case mainly encompasses one's Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate one's self. Ernest Miranda, a twenty-three year old drifter who had not completed the ninth grade, was arrested at his home and taken directly to a Phoenix, Arizona police station. There, after being identified by the victim of a rape-kidnapping, he was taken to an interrogation room, where he was questioned about the crimes. At first, Miranda maintained his innocence, but after two hours of questioning, the police emerged from the room with a signed written confession of guilt. At his trial, the written confession was admitted into evidence and Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. The United States Supreme Court was then faced with Miranda's claim that the confession was self-incrimination in violation of his constitutional rights. The police's admission that neither before nor during the questioning had Miranda had been advised of his right to consult with an attorney before answering any questions or his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation solidified Miranda's argument. The Supreme Court was to consider the constitutiona
The outcome of this case affects the lives of Americans in various ways. The most conspicuous affect is that the power of the police is limited. The police cannot dupe the accused into giving a confession. Furthermore, the rights of the people are strengthened. People who do not know or comprehend their rights can now make a wiser decision. Also, the repetition of these rights by the police prevents them from misleading the suspect. The personal emotions of an authority figure play less of a part in the procedure now than before. If the decision were to be the antithesis of the present, then the power of the police would certainly be greater. The police could use every conceivable ruse to trap the suspect into making him say what they want him to say. But with the present decision, the values that were forged by the framers of the Constitution are protected. The decision in the Miranda case was a 5-4 split. The five votes in favor of Miranda's argument can be explained relatively simply. The proponents of the decision felt that the right to not give evidence against one's self is a basic right of humans. Thus, those feeling this way voted for Miranda's argument. In contrast, Pre-Miranda view held that questioning a suspect was "indispensable" to law enforcement work. Also, the privilege to not be a witness against oneself was not considered a
Some common words found in the essay are:
Furthermore Post-Miranda, Fifth Amendment, Supreme Court, Goldman Sheldon, Phoenix Arizona, Moreover Pre-Miranda, Ernest Miranda, miranda's argument, constitutional rights, Miranda Arizona, United Court, supreme court, waiver constitutional rights, coerced incriminate, miranda 5-4, written confession, decision miranda, neither nor, court ruled, confession admitted evidence, pre-miranda view held, fifth amendment,
Approximate Word count = 915
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
