Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), holds an important position in the United States law history of suspects, giving some the right to preserve their innocence and others the chance to remain silent even if they are guilty.To be a free, just nation, there lies many important responsibilities upon the lawmakers of the nation, which leads them to consider every single fact relating an individual’s rights. I personally give my stance in the favour of this decision.
There are many important cases related to fundamental rights of fairness of the suspects in the United States history such as “Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 and Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, but Miranda v. Arizona was granted the top position by U.S. government. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963, being charged of kidnapping and rape. He confessed his crime, within his two hour interrogation. The fact that he was not informed of his self-incrimination rights prior
…show more content…
The case Escobedo v. Illinois, (1964), serves as an example. Danny Escobedo was arrested for the murder of his brother in law. Even after he was granted the right to counsel attorney, he failed to sought up with his lawyers. He subsequently confessed about the murder.
A person would be released even if he committed a crime is severe case scenario because his committing crime prior to the self-incrimination would itself serve as an evidence that he was guilty of the charge. According 18 U.S. Code section 3501, If a suspect voluntarily accepts his crime. The jury accepts his confession, voluntarily given, considering all circumstances in which he admitted