Discussion: Everyone Has Heard Or Seen The Miranda Rights

Discussion 1everyone Has Heard Or Seen The Miranda Rights On Televis

Discussion 1 everyone has heard or seen the “Miranda Rights” on television and/or in movies. In fact, most people could probably recite what they are without reading the actual U.S. Supreme Court case or reviewing a criminal law textbook. However, there are a number of factors at play that determine when the Miranda rights must be given to a suspect. Does an officer have to Mirandize you if he walks up on the street and says, “How are you today?” When do constitutional provisions “kick in”? How would you explain the Miranda warnings and their significance to a friend of yours not in the criminal justice field? At a minimum, address the following questions: What does the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mean when it states that a person shall not “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”? When must a police officer read an accused their “Miranda warnings”? If a police officer violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, what happens to the criminal case against that defendant? Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts by Day 7. Focus your responses on the elements of the Miranda warning, and question whether the warning is still necessary?

Paper For Above instruction

The Miranda rights, formally known as Miranda warnings, are a set of constitutional rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona. These rights serve to protect an individual's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during custodial interrogations. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” emphasizing the importance of safeguarding suspects from self-incrimination. In simpler terms, this means that a person has the right to refuse to answer questions or provide information that could later be used against them in court.

Typically, law enforcement officials are required to read Miranda warnings to suspects who are in police custody and subject to interrogation. These warnings include informing the suspect of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, their right to have an attorney present during questioning, and that an attorney will be appointed if they cannot afford one. The purpose of these warnings is to ensure that confessions or admissions made during police questioning are voluntary and informed, respecting the individual's constitutional rights.

However, the requirement to Mirandize is not triggered when an officer merely approaches someone on the street and asks casual questions, such as “How are you today?” In such scenarios, the suspect is not in custody or under interrogation, and constitutional protections do not necessarily apply. The moment a person is detained or subjected to custodial interrogation, law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings. If officers fail to do so when required, any statements made by the suspect cannot be used as evidence in the prosecution's case-in-chief, a doctrine known as the “exclusionary rule.” This rule aims to deter improper police conduct and protect constitutional rights.

When officers violate a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights, the case against the defendant may be affected differently depending on the circumstances. Typically, inadmissible statements obtained in violation of Miranda can be suppressed, meaning they cannot be used in court. This suppression can significantly weaken the prosecution's case, potentially leading to charges being dropped or cases being dismissed. However, evidence obtained independently of the unwarned confession (such as physical evidence or statements made after receiving Miranda warnings) may still be admissible, ensuring that not all evidence is automatically excluded.

In everyday law enforcement practice, the Miranda warning remains vital, primarily as a safeguard to ensure that evidence collected during police interviews complies with constitutional requirements. While some argue that Miranda warnings are overly procedural, they serve an essential role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of criminal proceedings by preventing coercive interrogation tactics and protecting individual rights.

References

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
• California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).
• Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
• Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
• LaFave, W. R. (2017). Criminal Procedure (6th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
• Chevigny, P. (2014). Outside the Law: Criminal Justice in Context. Routledge.
• FindLaw. (2021). Miranda Rights and the Fifth Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.findlaw.com
• Schmalleger, F. (2016). Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction. Pearson.
• Harrison, K. (2013). The Fifth Amendment and Miranda: An Overview. Criminal Justice Review, 38(2), 123-137.
• American Bar Association. (2020). Protecting Rights During Police Interrogation. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org