Verified Document

Miranda Rights Should Be Available To Individuals Essay

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.

Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Miranda Rights Criminal Justice Courts
Words: 4566 Length: 15 Document Type: Term Paper

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 V. Arizona Supreme Court Case 1966
Words: 1920 Length: 5 Document Type: Term Paper

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,

Brief This Case Miranda V. Arizona
Words: 1201 Length: 3 Document Type: Term Paper

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...
Words: 1994 Length: 7 Document Type: Essay

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

Patriot Act and 911 Commission Exclusionary Rule and Miranda V. Arizona...
Words: 4312 Length: 9 Document Type: Term Paper

Corruption exists within all aspects of government, and has since early civilization. While many steps have been taken to prevent such corruption in other areas of the world, the United States has recently introduced legislation that has the potential to actually increase the amount of possible corruption, particularly in reference to police officers "enforcing" the law. This paper will discuss the U.S.A. Patriot Act and its follow-up legislation, the Domestic

Legal Definitions Miranda Rule -- Prohibits the
Words: 2396 Length: 9 Document Type: Essay

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

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now