ipl-logo

Why Do People Have The Right To Remain Silent

500 Words2 Pages

You Have the Right to Remain Silent..., sound familiar, this is the first of the Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are the rights that any person who is taken into police custody is entitled to. As stated in the sixth amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,...” this means that anyone taken into custody by authorities has the right to a trial to prove themselves either innocent or guilty. Some questions people might ask about the Miranda Rights are, “Why is it important for people to have their Miranda Rights read to them while they are being questioned by police?”, and “Why do people have the right to remain silent?”, or “Why should they have a right to have a lawyer present when they are being questioned?” These are all very good questions.

It is important for the people taken to be questioned to have their Miranda Rights read to them. This is because the warning informs the suspects who …show more content…

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” These are the third and fourth Miranda Rights. They are saying that suspects can consult a lawyer to support them during their questioning and trial. If they can’t afford or do not have an attorney, the authorities will provide them with one. Suspects are supported by their lawyers whether they plead guilty or innocent.

All of the Miranda Rights came to be, due to the case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape and kidnapping. He was a poor, uneducated man who didn’t know much about law and his rights. After his questioning, Miranda confessed to the crimes, his confession was used against him in trial, and he was found guilty of both crimes. He was sentenced to prison for thirty years. Miranda did not know and was not told that he had certain constitutional rights. This case lead to the creation of the Miranda Rights and police have to read these rights to each person who is being

Show More
Related

  • Miranda's Confession, Injustice In Pheonix, Arizona

    364 Words  | 2 Pages

    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. Upon eventually learning that his confession was obtained unlawfully, Miranda would appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking for an overturn, and when that fell through, would turn to the United States Supreme Court, filing a habeas corpus.

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs. Arizona Policing Cases

    538 Words  | 3 Pages

    Policing was forever changed in 1966 after the deciding factor of the case Miranda vs. Arizona. The case also addressed three other cases involving custodial interrogations, the cases were Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape, kidnapping, and robbery, after he was identified by the victim. Miranda was not informed of his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination, and also his 6th amendment right to have a counsel. Miranda was then interrogated by the Phoenix Police where he was arrested for two hours, and allegedly confessed to the crimes which was recorded by the police.

    Read More

  • Police Exception Questions: Miranda V. Arizona

    687 Words  | 3 Pages

    Response: Miranda v. Arizona was a case that focused on four separate court cases that involved custodial interrogations (USC, 2015). Each of these cases involved subjects being questioned by officers in rooms cut off from the general public. The main issue with these interrogations was the fact that none of the subjects were given a full advisory of their rights at the beginning of their

    Read More

  • Advantages Of Jfrom The 6th Amendment

    173 Words  | 1 Pages

    There are some very important rights granted to you jfrom the 6th amendment which I think if you are going to trial you should try and use to your advantage. you will get a trial by a jury and also with that jury they will be able to hear all witnesses and see all evidence received for the case. The opportunity to see, hear, and confront the witnesses presenting the case against them as well. They will get an chance to call witnesses and even have the court give subpoenas to make sure the witnesses appear they also can testify themselves it they would like to if not they can refuse to testify. they will have the right to cross-examine a witness who is trying to testify against them as well.

    Read More

  • Principles Of Miranda Vs Arizona Democracy

    569 Words  | 3 Pages

    Before the police interrogation, which lasted two hours, Miranda was not informed of his rights which therefore caused him to be interrogated without an attorney present and it led him to self-incriminate himself. The trial “ consisted solely of his confession” (Alex Mcbride n.d.) which caused the court to convict Miranda of rape and kidnapping, sentencing him to 20-30 years in prison. Miranda then went to the Arizona Supreme Court appealing that his confession was unconstitutionally obtained and used against him. When the court disagreed he appealed to the U.S Supreme Court where they declared the actions of law enforcement unconstitutional because they violated the constitution's fifth and sixth amendment. Because of this, Miranda's confession could not be admissible in a court of

    Read More

  • Alito's Attack On Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than It Seems By Mark Stern

    1486 Words  | 6 Pages

    Through the disclosure of rights and encouragement of legal counsel, Miranda warnings provide a suspect with the opportunity to have legal representation to help protect them from unintentional or involuntary confessions. Legal representatives can provide protection against deceitful interrogation and potential violations of their rights. The second reason I support the argument is that Miranda V. Arizona prevents susceptible individuals from being influenced by forceful or deceitful interrogation tactics that aim to manipulate suspects into providing information or confessions. In many situations, police officers and other law enforcement officials will attempt to lie and manipulate a detainee into providing information.

    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

  • Ernesto Miranda's Fifth And Sixth Amendment Rights

    696 Words  | 3 Pages

    Ernesto Miranda, a suspect charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery, had his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights violated during a police interrogation. These injustices lead to a United States Supreme Court trial, whose outcome forever imprints our justice system. Ernesto Miranda, a resident of Phoenix, was charged for rape, kidnapping, and robbery in 1963. Miranda was identified by the victim and he was detained and interrogated by police for two hours, where he allegedly conceded to the crimes he was charged of and signed a written statement included with a typed disclaimer, without any attorney present. The police neglected to apprise Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination prior to police interrogation, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Read More

  • The Bill Of Rights: Miranda V. Arizona

    632 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Bill of Rights; a document made to protect the citizen's rights and liberties. The Amendments in the Bill of Rights grant every citizen equal rights and prohibits the government from violating these rights. In the case Miranda v. Arizona (1963), Ernesto Miranda committed two serious crimes and confessed to them when questioned by police. However, Miranda was not read his rights and was unaware of his Constitutional right to remain silence. It is important for every citizen to know their rights; even citizens who commit the worst of crimes.

    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

  • Dear Zachary Essay

    929 Words  | 4 Pages

    However, despite these provided liberties, the government also has a responsibility to protect the safety of its citizens. If one person who was accused of a serious crime but does not turn out to be guilty has to spend time in jail awaiting their trial, it is worth it if the lives of other people are saved. Although the rights of the accused are extremely important, human lives should be protected whenever possible: ultimately, the safety of civilians is more

    Read More

  • Civil Liberties Vs. Civil Rights

    1251 Words  | 6 Pages

    SLO: 1 Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights Civil Liberties are individual rights that are acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. Civil Liberties place restraints on what the government can and can’t do. These individual rights cannot be taken away by law. These rights can be found in the Bill of Rights. 2

    Read More

  • What Does Miranda Rights Mean To You

    524 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Miranda Rights are part of a preventative criminal procedure rule that states law enforcement are required to administer Miranda Rights to an individual who is in custody and is subject to direct questioning for a criminal violation of law. When a person is detained or taken into custodial arrest and interrogated for a criminal offense, if he or she wishes to remain silent the individual must expressly state that he or she chooses to remain silent. In addition, if the individual asserts that he or she wishes to speak to an attorney or have an attorney present, police must then cease interrogations and wait until

    Read More

  • Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    890 Words  | 4 Pages

    Arizona, Were his rights violated? It is obvious that Ernesto 's rights were not clear to him. Before his interrogation, Miranda was unaware of his rights and when he made his confession, they were entirely thrown out. In 1965, the court agreed to heir his case. Miranda 's case won 5-4 and a statement was made.

    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

More about Why Do People Have The Right To Remain Silent

Open Document