Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Another example of an exception to the Miranda Rule concerns surreptitious questioning as in the case of Illinois v. Perkins (1990) (2003). In this case it was decided that a criminal suspect's 5th Amendment rights are not being violated if a suspect is speaking with an undercover police officer and incriminating information is given to the undercover police (2003). Essentially speaking, Miranda Rights are not necessary when a criminal suspect is not aware that he or she is talking to a law enforcement officer (2003).
These five exceptions help to erode the Miranda Ruling in several different ways. First of all, the Miranda Rules were created to protect people -- essentially from themselves. In Moran v. Burbine, the exception is harmful because if a person waives his right to a lawyer but then receives counsel that he should remain silent, law enforcement has a duty to uphold this individual's civil rights. Not telling him about the advice is unfair. In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, just because booking procedures are being followed as they should...
Miranda and following booking procedures should be the norm. In reference to illegal search and seizure as seen in New York v. Harris, entering a home unlawfully should always remain unlawful. Just because a person is later found to be guilty is beyond the point. Without a search warrant or a legal right to enter the home, the act is always unlawful despite what the outcome is. These are just a few examples of how the Miranda Rules are being eroded by the exceptions made.
References
Holland, J.J. (2010). Supreme Court Miranda Ruling: Suspects must explicitly tell police they want to remain silent. Huffington Post. Accessed on September 14, 2011:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/supreme-court-miranda-rul_n_596012.html
NCWC. (2003). "Miranda law: A guide to the privilege against self-incrimination."
Accessed on September 13, 2011:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect19.htm
Miranda Rule's effectiveness in America today [...] why the Miranda is well tailored to guard against constitutional violations, and will present an argument for the Miranda rule. The Miranda Rule, first adopted in 1966, is still a contentious ruling in today's criminal justice system. While some critics of the rule feel it is not a deterrent to coercion of information from a suspect, most experts believe the Miranda Rule
S. Supreme Court). Following this case, police departments were now required to inform every arrested person of their rights under the law, now called a "Miranda Warning." Many conservatives believed that it was unfair and unnecessary to inform suspects of their rights, rights they should know if an American Citizen. Even President Richard Nixon believed that Miranda made it easier on criminals and harder on police. This view held that the
Americans are aware that they are entitled to "their day in court" but may not fully understand the full range of due process protections that are contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the relevant literature to provide a discussion concerning the meaning, history and importance of the constitutional concept of "due process" as contained in the Fifth
Miranda Rights Miranda THE PROS AND CONS OF THE MIRANDA RIGHTS Protection against self-incrimination is undoubtedly one of the most basic rights as described in the laws and codes of the American legal system. In the past, this right was often completely abridged, for those that were accused of a crime would be forced to confess their guilt through various forms of torture. But under American law, the protection against self-incrimination infers that
" (p. 471). Finally, the Court ruled that the police could not interrogate suspects who expressed the desire to exercise their right to remain silent and that. "Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease." (pp. 473-74). If the interrogation continues and if the
In modern criminal procedure and practice, the Sixth Amendment also provides specific requirements of police, such as where criminal defendants express the desire to consult legal counsel. Irrespective of whether or not such a request precedes or follows the common recitation of Miranda warnings by arresting authorities, the Supreme Court has now long-regarded any expression of request for legal counsel as the immediate cut-off point of any further questioning (Colon, 2004;