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.
The Supreme Court however, should not reverse their ruling on Miranda rights, because they are Constitutional rights that every citizen has. The majority of the time, criminals who are less educated will not know of their rights and therefore the institution of Miranda rights is crucial for every suspect to have a fair and equitable treatment from police officers.
In order to circumvent Miranda right restrictions an investigator should focus upon questions that allow suspects to explain their situation and reveal information that they would otherwise not have revealed. An investigator should focus on information such as their name, date of birth, address and other biographical information, collection of such information is legal under Miranda rights at the same time they convey to the suspect that they are still going to be questioned, and that Miranda rights do not give them unequivocal...
Some of the issues that interrogators should focus on before the interrogation are to understand fully the circumstance surrounding their suspect, such as where the suspect was at the time of their arrest or when the crime took place. The more circumstantial information he/she possesses will allow them to direct specified information that will intimidate the suspect. They should also understand push issues for the suspect that directly relate to their case. For instance, certain suspects might have had a previous criminal record, or relatives with criminal records, or specific motives for performing the specified crime. The purpose would be to find more reasons for this individual to confess to their crime.
Police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth and address without reading suspects their Miranda warnings
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,
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
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
The Court also stated that if an individual indicates at any time that he wants to remain silent, the interrogation must stop; any statement taken after this time is the product of compulsion. Silence can never constitute a valid waiver. Dissent: Justice Clark's dissented in three of the decisions, but concurred in one. He found that police coercion was not sufficiently established to justify the extent of the majority's decision.
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 Ruling: Its Past, Present and Future In almost all cases, the Miranda ruling of 1966 applies to police interviews with criminal suspects, although other Supreme Court decisions extend some of the rights to legal counsel and prevention of self-incrimination to public and private employers. According to the Supreme Court, the Miranda Warnings must be given prior to questioning to all persons who have been arrested and are in police