History and Impacts of Miranda Rights
Student’s Name:
Department, Institution:
Professor’s Name:
Discipline:
History and Impacts of Miranda Rights
Introduction
A Miranda right, also known as the Miranda warning, is a statement of the rights given by the arresting officer to the criminal suspects advising the suspects of their rights to remain silent while being held at custody. These rights dictate that: a suspect has the right to remain silent, anything the suspect says can be used against him or her, a suspect has the right to have a lawyer during questioning, and if he cannot afford a lawyer, one has to be assigned to him, and a suspect has a right to seek a piece of advice from a lawyer before interrogation commences (Howard, 2005). Miranda rights are purposed to preserve the criminal’s admissibility of statements later made during custodial interrogations. Everyone is entitled to know their Miranda rights, including the history and impacts of such rights.
History of Miranda Rights
The history of Miranda rights can be traced back to a Supreme Court case: Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 (2020). The case involved a 24-year-old defendant, Ernesto Miranda, who had been suspected of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old lady (2020). This was after the victim’s cousin had noticed a suspicious car drive near the scene and reported it to the police (2020). After careful investigation, the police spotted the car’s owner to be Miranda (Howard, 2005). Miranda was a high school drop-out and did not understand his criminal rights well. The officers thoroughly interrogated him for two hours. He finally confessed to the crime by signing a written statement that stated that he had made the confession with complete knowledge of his legal rights (Howard, 2005).
This statement was used against him in the court and he was convicted of having committed the crime (2020). Six months later, after the conviction, Miranda’s lawyer appealed to the Court and posed different questions in accordance to Miranda’s rights. One of these questions was if the statement Miranda signed was out of free will (2020). Miranda’s lawyer, Alvin Moore, claimed that his client had not been made aware of his rights to remain silent, and thus, his confession was not voluntary (2020). However, the Arizona Supreme court proved Moore’s argument invalid by stating that Miranda was fully aware of his rights.
However, the American Civil Liberties union got involved and took the case to U.S. Supreme Court (2020). They claimed that the ruling of the case by Arizona Court violated the constitutional rights for Miranda. Different lawyers supported the liberal union’s argument by claiming that by Miranda not getting informed of his interrogation rights, police violated the Sixth amendment right which entailed the criminal defendants’ rights (2020). They further argued that Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated (2020). Their main argument was that Miranda was completely not informed of his rights, and thus, the court should withdraw his case.
The Supreme Court thus ruled that Miranda had been denied his rights and thus was supposed to undergo another trial before final decision was made (2020). During the same period, the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, came out with a detailed procedure to be used by the police when interrogating the suspects (2020). The procedure dictated that any criminal suspect should be read his rights carefully before the commencement of interrogation (2020). These rights were then referred to as Miranda rights and entailed: The right to remain silent, right to have a lawyer, and in case one is unable to have his lawyer, then one had to be provided, the right to speak to a lawyer before interrogation and the right to stop talking if one was speaking before his attorney arrives (Howard, 2005).
The American English thus developed a verb Mirandize with a meaning of ‘read the Miranda rights to’ an arrested suspect. It was a requirement that each police officer be reading Miranda’s rights to a suspect before starting the interrogation procedure (2020). Another rule was passed that a suspect was supposed to understand the Miranda rights fully, and in case the suspect had a problem understanding the language used, another language had to be used, even if it is the suspect’s mother tongue. There was also no order to be followed in reading the Miranda rights (2020).
As for Ernesto, he was given a second trial without signing of the written confession statement. However, his ex-girlfriend testimony and the evidence found were enough evidence that he had committed the crime and was thus convicted again (2020). He was thus sentenced to 30 years in prison. He was later exonerated from jail in December 1975, but a month after his release, he was stabbed to death in a bar fight (2020). The suspects were caught and detained. After been read their Miranda rights, they remained silent and thus it was hard for the police to get valid evidence and thus nobody got convicted for his murder.
Ever since, Miranda rights are read carefully to suspects before they are being interrogated. It is therefore very important that everybody knows his or her Miranda rights and understands them. One should also demand for a translator in case he or she does not understand the language at which the Miranda rights are written.
Impacts of Miranda Rights
There are different ways in which Miranda rights have impacted individuals and society at large. Some of these impacts have positive effects, while others impact society negatively. For instance, Miranda’s rights have positively impacted most of the individual but when it comes to society, it has somehow brought about some negative impacts.
- Positive impacts
One of the most positive impacts of Miranda rights is the protection it offers to suspects. Before creation of the Miranda’s rights, law enforcement agencies forced the suspects to incriminate themselves (Leo, 1995). Due to fear, most of the suspects signed the confession statement and ended up been convicted of the crimes they did not even commit. Miranda rights defend the 5th Amendment right, which denies forced self-incrimination (Leo, 1995) thus giving individuals the courage to speak to their attorneys who advise them on the right thing to do. The rights also offer individuals the freedom to remain silent if they are not willing to speak.
Miranda rights have also impacted positively by easing the way law enforcement officers operate. This is by giving them a guideline in which they have to follow in performing their investigations (Leo, 1995). Before these rights were created, police officers had a difficult time investigating crimes since they had to come up with a way of doing so but when Miranda rights were introduced, they were provided with a guideline on how to carry out the investigation. This has contributed so much to make their work of interrogation easy and reducing the abuse of some officers to suspects.
Lastly, Miranda’s rights have positively impacted the entire society through the freedom of expression it brings along. For instance, everybody knowing their Miranda rights makes it so hard for a security officer to mistreat a person (Leo, 1995). This knowledge gives individuals freedom to either express themselves or even to remain silent. For example, if a person is charged with a crime of murder and in a real sense did not commit the crime, he or she can remain silent and ask for a lawyer to present his case. If a person does not know his or her Miranda rights, he or she has a right to be informed of the rights and thus the person will have the freedom to demand for the rights.
- Negative Impacts
Although Miranda rights have impacted positively in many ways, they have also posed some negative impacts to society. One of these negative impacts includes insulating criminals (Leo, 1995). This implies that Miranda rights, to a more significant way, try to cover criminals. For instance, if a person has committed murder and there is no evidence, they can choose to remain silent during the entire period of interrogation making it so hard for the police officers to know if the person is guilty or not. The court also finds it so hard to convict the person of his crime, and the criminal ends up not going to jail.
The other negative impact of Miranda rights is that it promotes moral decay in society. By knowing their Miranda rights, people can choose to commit different crimes like murder and get away with the crimes. Such behavior mainly applies due to the right of remaining silent the Miranda rights dictates. Most criminals, for instance, have walked free due to these Miranda rights. This act affects society at a more significant weight because criminals tend to increase, and society can do nothing to curb the criminals’ acts.
Conclusion
The creation of Miranda rights has transformed the world in a very critical manner. For instance, Miranda rights have given people freedom of expression during interrogation. Though these rights have positively impacted society, they have also brought about some negative impacts, such as moral decay. It is thus crucial that every person understands their Miranda rights and effectively uses them.
References
(2020). Miranda Rights. History.com editors. Retrieved from https://www.
Fiduccia, C. (2013) General knowledge and misknowledge of Miranda rights:
Are effective Miranda advisements still necessary? University of North Texas.
Howard, R. (2005). History of Miranda and why it remains vital today.
Val. UL Rev. 40, 685
Leo, R. (1995). The impacts of Miranda revisited. J.Crim. L. & Criminology 86, 621, 1995.
Wollin, D. (1992). Policing the police: Should Miranda Violations Bear Fruit? Ohio St. LJ 53,
Schulhofer, S. (1987). Reconsidering Miranda. The University of Chicago Law Review 54 (2),
435- 461.