ipl-logo

What Miranda Rights Mean To Me

700 Words3 Pages

What the miranda rights mean to me What is the reason to having the miranda rights?Not many people have heard of the miranda rights.On the other hand cops that have heard of the miranda rights should know them and if they don 't and arrest someone and they go in front of a judge and was to say they didn 't know anything about their rights they would be set free. If the police ask me questions i would want my miranda rights read to me because i would like to know my rights as an american citizen what i could do and what i couldn 't do but if i didn 't know that i didn 't have to talk and i told the officer something that i didn 't want them knowing about while there was no lawyer. When the police are asking me questions i should have the right to remain silent and then the police can 't ask me questions and if they do then i don 't have to answer anything and if they try to make me say something i don 't have to until i am standing in front of a judge or there is a lawyer present.The police have to know what they are doing and know what to tell the criminal because if he doesn 't tell him everything that he needs to know then he could possible get set free. …show more content…

When the police are asking questions i think the people should have the right to have a lawyer present and the reason to having a lawyer present is to protect you and the lawyer can make the police to stop asking me or anyone questions the lawyer also fights for you in court and if the lawyer is good then you could possibly be set free. that 's why the people of our country should know are constitutional rights, that 's why miranda got arrested in the first place is he didn 't know anything about our rights and he set there and let that cop make him confess and the bad part about all of this is the cop knew the rights but chose not to read them to him,i thank 9f miranda would have known his rights that cop wouldn 't have been able to set there and just keep

Show More
Related

  • Ernesto Miranda Legal Brief

    1061 Words  | 5 Pages

    Paragraph #2: The Law and Legal Questions The Fifth Amendment is “No person told you held To answer for a capital, or otherwise Infamous crime”. It means that no person can be forced to speak whatsoever. When Miranda was arrested the police were supposed to inform him about his two rights (Right to keep quiet and write for a lawyer) (United States Courts, 2017)

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs. Arizona Case Study

    624 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although the Miranda Rights have helped many people throughout their cases, it has also hurt the police departments all across America. After the Miranda Rights were enforced to be used after arresting, the number of confessions from suspects fell sixteen percentage points. It also affected the number of cases solved because the suspects no longer confessed about the wrong they did so there were large number of cases that never gotten solved. Many crimes were let unsolved and they dramatically fell in numbers like the cases of violent crimes solved dropped 25% and property crimes solved fell as well. To put the numbers in perspective , if the Miranda rights weren 't put into place between 8,000 to 36,000, or more robberies would have been solved in 1995 according to Paul Cassell, that 's a lot of robberies that could have been

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case Brief

    870 Words  | 4 Pages

    This allows the suspected criminal to be aware of his rights, which could allow him to avoid things such as a false confessions due to intimidation. The miranda rights have had such a big impact that they’ve now become something so basic and elementary that we now take it for granted and consider it the norm. D. Arguments Miranda’s party argued that his confession wasn’t admissible in court due to the fact that his constitutional rights had been violated. They stated that, he was deprived of having an attorney with him and that he was never aware that he had the right to remain silent, thus it was easier to coerce him into confession.

    Read More

  • Overview Of Miranda Ruling

    861 Words  | 4 Pages

    In March of 1963 a Mexican born immigrant named Ernesto Miranda living in the city of Phoenix, Arizona was chosen in a police lineup by an 18 year old woman who was accusing him of kidnapping and raping her. Miranda was then arrested and questioned by police for several hours before he confessed to the crimes both verbally and in writing. Miranda signed several forms when he confessed to the crimes, including one stating that his confession was completely voluntary and that he understood all his rights. But during the interrogation the police officers did not tell Miranda that he had the right to remain silent, a right granted to him by the Fifth Amendment.

    Read More

  • Bill Of Rights: The Miranda Vs. Wainright

    401 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Bill of Rights, the document that gives us our rights, and helped formed today’s society. But it wasn’t always as spread out and fundamental as it is today. Over the years, the Supreme Court has extended our rights in many ways. The Miranda vs. Arizona and Gideon vs. Wainright are just a few examples of the Bill of Rights’ extension. First and foremost, the Amendments addressing rights related to court weren’t always fundamental, but were only in use for federal hearings.

    Read More

  • Arturo Miranda Research Paper

    515 Words  | 3 Pages

    The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, the right of any person accused of a crime to not testify against himself. This amendment has been a part of the U.S. Constitution since 1791. However, it was not until the 1960s that law enforcement were forced to really take this Constitutional Right seriously. In 1963 a man named Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrest for robbery.

    Read More

  • Miranda Warning Dbq

    883 Words  | 4 Pages

    The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

    Read More

  • Earl Warren's Supreme Court Cases

    1023 Words  | 5 Pages

    Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).

    Read More

  • Fifth Amendment Pros And Cons

    814 Words  | 4 Pages

    The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that a defendant, “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On The Fourth Amendment

    427 Words  | 2 Pages

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights Violations

    1966 Words  | 8 Pages

    The rules that officers must do to arrest a suspect are designed to protect their physical safety and also to avoid making a legal mistake that can lead to ruining the prosecution 's trial case. During the time of the arrest the cops are to read out the suspects Miranda rights. The Miranda rights were done in the U.S. supreme court ruling Miranda v. Arizona which set the rights to remain silent, and anything that you say can be used against you in a court of law etc (Miranda rights). Police Officers violate people 's rights by unreasonable searches through their houses or pulling them over. In a matter of fact, they have to have a reason why they stopped you and need a warrant issued for searching you.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

    Read More

  • We The People Chapter 4 Summary

    501 Words  | 3 Pages

    The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Miranda Vs Arizona Case Brief

    531 Words  | 3 Pages

    Case Brief Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: The Miranda warning, which informs criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney while they are in police custody or being questioned in a detention facility, was created by the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was brought by Ernesto Miranda, who was detained under the charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. He wasn't told of his right to an attorney or the right to remain silent before being questioned by the police, so Miranda admitted to the crimes while being interviewed. The confession was admitted into evidence during the trial, and Miranda was found guilty. Procedural History: After Miranda was convicted, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court who reaffirmed his rights had not been violated.

    Read More

  • Individual Rights Vs Public Order Essay

    798 Words  | 4 Pages

    An individual right is for the police not to use unnecessary force on an individual. Whether that force be physical, like shoving them around, or more of an emotional force. An example of an emotional force is using threats, like threatening to use a Taser to get someone to obey. A situation that could happen is you get pulled over for speeding and asked to step outside of your vehicle. An unnecessary force would be the police officer pulling

    Read More

More about What Miranda Rights Mean To Me

Open Document