Miranda Rights

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that the case "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436" (1966) is synonymous with the Miranda warnings given to accused criminals reminding them of their right to remain silent and to an attorney. The author points out that the Miranda cases did not create these rights; under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, defendants already had them; however, many defendants were either ignorant of them or unsure how to exercise them. The paper states that the Miranda requires the police to inform suspects of their rights prior to their interrogations; the failure to follow this process can invalidate the results of otherwise legal confessions.

From the Paper:

"While some might agree with the dissent's concerns, the end result of the Miranda controversy tends to indicate otherwise. "Miranda was retried, and this time the police did not use the confession but called witnesses and used other evidence. Miranda was convicted, and served 11 years." In other words, the exclusion of the results of coercive interrogations does not necessarily mean that criminals will go free. However, the fact that the Miranda decision cannot be equated with a license to commit crime does not mean that the Miranda decision did not have a dramatic effect on police procedure. Police departments were inquired to issue the so-called Miranda warnings prior to interrogating a person under arrest. There was controversy as the courts had to determine what constituted arrest and custodial interrogation. The result was that, once a defendant is no longer free to leave or to end questioning, even voluntary interrogations become custodial."

More papers on Miranda Rights:

• Case Study # 122991 : "Miranda Rights - Case Brief"
• Research Paper # 109460 : "Miranda Rights"
• Essay # 53122 : "Miranda Rights"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: