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.
Miranda Rights Should Be Available to Individuals Detained by Private Security
Most people are familiar with so-called "Miranda Rights" that are named after the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Fewer people actually understand what those rights actually are or why they are important. Specifically, Miranda does not actually require police to "read rights" to suspects or prohibit them from questioning suspects and arrested persons. Instead, Miranda imposes a penalty only after the fact, by excluding from admissibility at the criminal trial of any statements made by defendants after their arrest unless they were first advised of their constitutional right not to speak to police and of their constitutional right to be represented by an attorney. Another thing that most people do not understand about "Miranda rights" is, like most other constitutional rights, they only apply to government authorities and not to private entities such as security personnel employed by retailers. That means that private security personnel are generally free to employ tactics like intimidation and threats to get suspects to divulge information incriminating them in the crimes for which they suspected.
However, the consequences of these types of admissions are typically used in any criminal trials of those suspects arising from those crimes. This is decidedly unfair to accused persons, especially since retail security personnel frequently wear police-like uniforms complete with metallic badges. When a suspect is questioned by uniformed security personnel in a small room, the situation is no less intimidating than being questioned by police. The fact that these interrogations occur under what the law refers to as the "color of apparent authority" and the trial implications of admissions under these circumstances means that Miranda should fairly apply to these situations and for the same underlying reasons, namely the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Sources Consulted
Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st
Century. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing Co
Zalman, M. (2008). Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society. Princeton, NJ:
Pearson Publishing Co.
Other examples in which the Court of the United States notes the Constitution had been violated because the defendant was not guaranteed aid of counsel or legal advisement include the case of Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 314, No. 326. This again is a case in which the Petitioner was accused and the interrogation was set up to make the Petitioner admit his criminal actions so that incriminating
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
Miranda Rights To most people, the case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is synonymous with the Miranda warnings given to accused criminals. People understand that Miranda means that a criminal defendant has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Although Miranda warnings do inform defendants of those rights, the Miranda decision is not what created those rights. In fact, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,
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
Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966) This case was first brought in district court against Ernest Miranda after a rape investigation led authorities to question him. Under questioning, Miranda admitted to raping a young girl and signed a written confession. The case was heard in Phoenix district court and Miranda was adjudicated as guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Miranda's appeal, finding him guilty once again. The U.S. Supreme Court
Criminal Defense, Constitutional Rights Arrest Constitutional Rights Before and After Arrest Constitutional Rights are essential when considering a person's relationship with the authorities before and after his or her arrest. These rights practically guarantee that the individual is presented with a fair treatment. There has been much controversy regarding Constitutional Rights in the recent years, as people became confused concerning the rights of suspected criminals and the government's interest to protect