Miranda v Arizona
Miranda v Arizona is a landmark case in which the United States of America gave a ruling in regards to the arrested individuals. The ruling declared that all arrested individuals should be informed about their right to a counsel and to maintain silence before they start being interrogated by the police.
Miranda v Arizona is still a landmark case and one of the most important cases heard by the Supreme case in the 1960s (Salseda, et al. 2010). This case played a very important role in the establishment of justice reliability in the procedures of the case against a defendant in a criminal circumstance (Rogers, et al. 2010). The Supreme Court in the United States decided on this landmark case largely from two different guiding lines specifically from the 14th amendment.
The Miranda v Arizona’s case guides was the defendant’s right to a counsel which is majorly from Powell v. Alabama (1932). The decision of the court was that all needy perpetrators ought to get a counsel if they are facing capital cases. In the Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the court further fuelled this provision. The court decided that individuals should be given a counsel if they are charged with felony. In the Escobedo v. Illinois case of 1964, the decision of the court was that confession that is obtained after a perpetrator requests for an opportunity to speak to his/her attorney and he is denied is inadmissible (Salseda, et al. 2010).
The second guiding line was drawn from Malloy v. Hogan (1964). The decision of the court in this case was that the self-incrimination contradiction right is pragmatic for the state. Nevertheless, even prior the Miranda v Arizona case there were initial instances where the court made a decision inferring that the police should not use coercion of any nature while trying to extract information from a suspect. As such, before the court made a ruling on Miranda v Arizona case, using information that is extracted from individuals via any form of coercion whether physical or any type of psychological pressure was not allowed by the constitutional rules. This was especially the case if perpetrators had requested to be allowed consultations with their attorneys.
As such, it can be noted that the Supreme Court of the United States was to use the clauses of the 5th Amendment in the 14th Amendment. The Miranda v Arizona case majorly depended on the 14th Amendment. This amendment states that the ruling of the court on the cases that relate to criminals should be fair. In the Ernest Miranda case, he confessed that he kidnapped and raped the victim. The police initiated this confession by interrogating him after arresting him. Apart from the confession that he made before two policemen, he also wrote the same confession in a document and appended his signature on it (Rogers, et al. 2010). No form of coercion whether psychological or physical was employed by both policemen since this type of coercion had been defined by the previous cases (Rogers, et al 2010).
More interviews of this case showed that it was possible for the victim to answer the questions asked in manner that was relatively free. However, the information acquired from Miranda after denying the actions further confessed that he had committed the offense. The whole process used to obtain this information was relatively fast taking approximately two hours.
The main effect of Miranda v Arizona tussle in the US was the importance of the policemen in different states to get ‘Miranda cards’. These cards led to the embodied caution as per the requirement of the Supreme Court. After suspecting that someone has committed a crime and arresting him/her, the court decided that he/she should not be questioned or interrogated unless if a warning had been issued to that person and the suspect waived the right to maintain silence while obtaining guidance from a counsel prior answering questions. Interrogation must be stopped immediately if the arrested individual wants to consult an attorney. The interrogation would continue after the consultations.
Major changes in the way suspects are treated were observed after Miranda v Arizona tussle (Rogers, et al. 2010). This is because the liability of indicating knowledge and volunteering a waiver of one’s right to remain silent was enforced by the court. Additionally, it showed that the perpetrators or the suspects had to be persuaded by the police in order to agree to write a statement. The decision of the court was able to change situations and atmospheres that suspects usually found themselves in before they were arrested (Rogers, et al. 2010).
However, it has been noted that the important ruling on Miranda v Arizona tussle has affected the way cases are handled. This is because confessions of the perpetrators were the main compositions of cases that were presented in the court against the suspect. On the other hand, people fear that the ruling of the case would jeopardize police efforts. The arguments of some people are that this ruling makes it difficult for the police to acquire important information that would be necessary for the determination of the situation of the suspect being guilty.
However, they fear that suspects may not make further confessions after consulting a counsel and the suspect may be waivered by the silent urge. Additionally, this case was credited for the protection the arrested persons’ rights as well as protecting them from the abusive and brutal language that police used in retrieving information from the suspects. The case eliminated coercion of the suspects by police officers (Friedman, 2010).
Do not trouble yourself with looking for the best place to have your assignments done.At EssaysExperts.net ,we have the best answer for you.Our writers are experts in all fields.Given their experience in the field,you are assured of nothing less than the best.
Friedman, B. (2010). Wages of Stealth Overruling (with Particular Attention to Miranda v. Arizona), The. Geo. LJ, 99, 1.
Salseda, L. M., Dixon, D. R., Fass, T., Miora, D., &Leark, R. A. (2011). An evaluation of< i> Miranda</i> rights and interrogation in autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 79-85.
Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(3), 300.