Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
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 was created with a solid foundation to help ensure a suspect's rights are not violated and the information from any suspect is admissible in court. The Miranda Rule guards the criminal justice system just as well as it guards against rights violations and because of this, it is vital to the quick and efficient trying of cases. The Miranda Rule is controversial, but it is a necessity in modern policing, and it helps both the suspect and the police.
The Miranda Rule
The Miranda Rule was created in 1966 as a result of the Supreme Court case "Miranda vs. Arizona." The court required law enforcement officers and agencies making an arrest to inform a victim of his rights, in accord with the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees freedom from self-incrimination. The Miranda statement (often simply referred to as "Miranda") is usually a version something like this, read to detainees before they are questioned: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning" (FindLaw). Miranda has become common knowledge to most Americans because of its' constant use on most police and detective television shows. Just about everyone knows about Miranda, but not everyone knows why it is such and effective tool for law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system.
Miranda has come under fire from critics ever since it passed, and there have been numerous attempts to overturn the decision, because some law enforcement agencies feel it impedes the confession and evidence process. However, the judicial system has resisted overturning Miranda for over nearly 40 years, and it seems to have a solid foundation in America's police departments. One expert notes, "Even many conservative critics of the Warren Court, while still adamantly opposed to extending the exclusionary rule to the states, have grudgingly conceded that Miranda was not so bad and seem to have accepted that the reforms of the criminal trial were, by and large, a good idea" (Bradley 37). Miranda ensures suspects maintain their rights by giving them the power to not speak until there is an attorney present, and acknowledges they have the right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. This ensures the police cannot "coerce" confessions out of suspects. If they do, the information may not be admissible in court, and the case may even be dismissed for lack of acceptable evidence. The Supreme Court cited several documents that endorse and back-up the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights, including the U.S. Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, Cohens v. Virginia, and many other more recent judicial decisions.
As it has aged, Miranda has gained the approval of many groups who initially opposed it. By 1993, it received the endorsement of four national police organizations and fifty former prosecutors, when they formally asked the Supreme Court to continue permitting Miranda claims in federal habeas corpus actions (Thomas 1). This indicates that Miranda, while still creating controversy, has become mainstream in policing, and it is no longer seen as the problem it has in the past. As one expert notes, "Without Miranda, courts would need to evaluate each arrest process in order to make sure that no illegal coercion takes place. Reading a suspect's rights protects both the law officer and the suspect from wrongful prosecution" (Carrillo). Thus, the Miranda decision, rather than impeding police procedures, has actually streamlined them, and created a more effective judicial process.
Recently, Miranda has come into use internationally, specifically as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. U.S. law agencies, including the FBI, have been conducting investigations oversees, and the question has…[continue]
"Miranda Rule" (2003, December 06) Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/miranda-rule-159591
"Miranda Rule" 06 December 2003. Web.2 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/miranda-rule-159591>
"Miranda Rule", 06 December 2003, Accessed.2 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/miranda-rule-159591
Legal Definitions Miranda Rule -- Prohibits the introduction of any testimonial evidence elicited from criminal suspects while under arrest or in police custody unless police first advise them of their constitutional rights to remain silent, refuse to answer questions, and to be represented by an attorney before beginning any custodial interrogation. I have heard this term used frequently in television crime programs. Prosecutor -- Is an attorney employed by the state whose
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
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 Scenario #1 In 1966 the Miranda v. Arizona case ushered in the era of police informing suspects of their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This case is universally accepted as critical to protecting the rights of suspects while in the custody of the police, however, the impact on the effectiveness of the police is not usually discussed. In a 1998 study John Donohoe discussed the empirical
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,
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements without the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination (Summary pp). The decision reads, "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer