Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

Chapter 4 of the book We the People talks about Civil Liberties, this chapter mainly talks about the Rights that were placed in the Constitution (not in the Bill of Rights), it also talks about the Bill of Rights and it describes the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It also talks about specific rights that work close together with the Bill of Rights and Amendments rights. One of the first Amendments that is described in great detail is Freedom of Speech and Religion. The first Amendment protects US citizens right to talk about almost any topic in the United States. I said almost any topic because there are some forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment (these forms of speech can be limited or prohibited), some of the forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment are Fighting Words and Hate Speech, Student Speech, Libel and Slander speech. These forms of speech aren’t protected by the First Amendment because they can help to incite people

Throughout the course of America's History, there have been decisions in law that have defined the America as a country, that have reinvented laws for better or for worse, and have affected the lives of millions. Some of these impactful decisions fell under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court like Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Plessy v. Ferguson. Of course without the judgment of the Supreme Court Justices, none of the decisions could have been made. Earl Warren was a Supreme Court Justice who served from 1953 to 1969. During this period Earl Warren was truly able to leave a lasting impression on America’s history by helping decide court cases that were extremely important to the lives of millions in America then and now.

When people are suspects under the law, they are entitled to their Miranda rights. A persons Miranda rights entitle them to remain silent, have an attorney present, have an attorney appointed to them if they cannot afford one, and that person is questioned if they understand those rights. It seems that a whopping 80% of suspects waive their Miranda rights. There are no exact reasons, only speculations as to why people waive that right. One that I will focus on is “Why do I need an attorney, if I did not do anything wrong?”

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Pheonix, Arizona for the kidnapping and raping of a woman. When questioned by police officers, Miranda would eventually give a confession, and sign it, which wasn 't the case.. Before the court, this confession would be used against Miranda, and with it, the implication that it was received voluntarily and with the convicted knowing his rights. Miranda was convicted with a 20-30 year sentence.

Technology seems to come hand in hand with modernity. It has made most tasks that used to take days to complete much easier. Technology has also improved the channels of communication. The invention of the modern day smart cellphone coupled with social media networking has allowed mankind to be in constant contact with one another from across the globe. However, despite these vast improvements, technology has also come with a lot of risks especially regarding personal information.

A public school cannot suspend a student with no notice or hearing because it infringes on his or her rights. The specific amendments broken by the public school officials are primarily the fifth and sixth. Public schools are not allowed to take away rights and liberties given to the American people. The suspended student was denied his rights to due process and his right to formal informant of crime committed.

In 1966, an influential court case occurred – one that would shape the United States to improve the justice system. Ernesto Miranda was accused for crimes and identified by the victim, after which he was then interrogated. Miranda orally confessed to a crime and signed a written confession; however, he did not request a lawyer, nor was he advised of his right to have one present. Due to the inadequate constitutionality of the situation, Miranda was able to challenge the Supreme Court in this conviction. The ruling in Miranda represents the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise of self-incrimination by offering protection in statements, reinforcing the Fifth Amendment, and the equity of suspects during interrogation.

One day a man trudged his way home after seeing his wife's grave. He was stopped by police officers that said he killed his wife for money, they then arrested him for the murder of his wife. After eight long years, no trial, no evidence connecting him to the crime. The police finally said that they wrongly accused him and that they still haven't found the real killer. Imagine this was you, does this sound in any way fair? The sixth amendment has a cluster of rights that guarantees to make criminal prosecutions more accurate, legitimate, and fair.

Ernesto Miranda was tried for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female. When they brought him in, the girl was not able to positively identify him in a lineup (Miranda V. Arizona). He was then interrogated for two hours by two of the officers that arrested him. At the end of the interrogation, Ernesto wrote and signed a confession (United States Courts). Ernesto was tried in Phoenix Arizona, but his lawyers said that the trial was unfair and that his 5th and 6th amendment rights had been violated due to the fact that Ernesto was never told his rights (Miranda V. Arizona).

Have you ever been watching a movie or a crime T.V. show and there is a police officer arresting someone and saying something along the lines of, “You have the right to remain silent..”? Not only does that happen in shows and movies, it does happen in real life. The Miranda Rights were officially established in 1966 when Ernesto Miranda, was arrested and confessed to his crimes but his confession was later thrown out because the officer who arrested im did not read Miranda his rights. Officially, every police officer who is taking someone into custody must recite the Miranda rights. Now, does Miranda v. Arizona ensure justice and preserve liberty? Some people might say that it does, only for the reason that if you are not read your rights and you confess, it will not be held against you, Miranda v. Arizona can make most of us feel that the first amendment is true, that we do have freedom of speech, and lastly because it gives us the right to decide what to do about the situation.

The central issue being looked at is the 6th Amendment, which is the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The point of the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause is to give the defendant more rights at trial. These rights include, the right to confront their accuser and the witness that are against them. The 6th Amendment also establishes the guidelines for out-of-court

Dominique was pulled over and due to the possibility of intoxication and was brought to the Bar Harbor police station. Without being read his Miranda rights he was placed into an intoxilyzer room. While the police officer was setting up the equipment Dominique exclaimed “It’s not going to work” pg. 2 which the officer replied to saying “No?” and he answered “No, [be]cause I had two beers in an hour…” and explained why he thinks it wouldn’t work because he had experience with law enforcement in his family. After the police officer got all of his general information i.e. his address, vehicle, and other information. After he explained the test and Dominique “I’m not going to blow into [the machine] pg. 3 the police officer explained to him that he would have to sign a form to indicate that he refused to consent to a breathalyzer test. After signing the form he was informed that since he wasn’t from Maine that he would have a higher bail than normal and it would actually be $540 and that he could one phone call. The police officer steps out while Dominique makes a phone call to his brother asking for bail

Ernesto Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona in 1941. (Hogrogian, J. p.103) Ernesto Miranda lived a troublesome youth. At the age of fifteen he was convicted of stealing a car, later arrested for trying to rape a woman and arrested six times by the age of eighteen. (Burgan, M. p. 16) It was not until March 3, 1963 when an assault would lead Ernesto Miranda as the main suspect in what would turn out to be a landmark Supreme Court case. The Victim an eighteen year old who was walking home after work was and was abducted, tied, robbed and raped. (Hogrogian, J. 1999 ) The abductor, a man who threaten his victim

Ever wondered how the court systems go about making their decisions and if they are just in doing so? There have been cases where the process of the law has been questioned. These cases can only be straightened out by the due process of law. The guarantee of due process, in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, prevents the government from unfairly depriving individuals of their basic rights to life, liberty, and property. (Strasser)

The Supreme Court's choice in Miranda v. Arizona tended to four unique cases including custodial cross examinations. In each of these cases, the accused was addressed by cops or an indicting lawyer in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the accused given a full and compelling cautioning of his rights at the start of the cross examination process. In every case, the scrutinizing evoked oral confirmations and, in three of them, signed statements that were conceded at trial. “Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written