The Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Research Essay

The Supreme Court’s precedent, Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The Supreme Court’s precedent, Miranda v. Arizona (1966), was developed after careful consideration of four related cases. One of the four cases was the Miranda case, from which the legislation got its name. The cases featured circumstances in which the defendant was questioned by the authorities without being informed of their constitutional rights, and a confession was obtained. The case of Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Supreme Court overturned Ernesto Miranda’s conviction for kidnapping and rape because he was not told of his constitutional rights prior to confessing, is discussed in this essay. He received a sentence of 20 to 30 years in prison after the panel deemed him guilty. However, after looking on to the case in a detailed way and comparison with other similar cases made. The Supreme Court decided that any time an individual was taken into police keeping for questioning, the person should be informed of their right so that they do not make any self-incriminating reports.

The primary legal issue in Miranda’s case

The primary legal issue in Miranda’s case is a conviction without being acutely aware of his rights was found to be violating the Miranda’s Fifth Amendment law. The court had to give the defendant an opportunity to defend himself without referring to the confession he made earlier when he was not familiar with his rights. Miranda law gave the individual a characteristic persuasive determination that allowed him to struggle for himself. However, this chance did not guarantee him to go free only that the confession could not be used against him. The court ruling was made twice on the issue. The first verdict was carried out without considering the defendant awareness of his right to talk to a lawyer or not to speak to the police and the right against self-incrimination (Burgan, 2007). In this situation, the court sentenced the defendant to twenty to thirty years in prison. The second verdict was made with an observation of suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights, in this scenario, he was tried again devoid of the confession and after which he was found guilty to serve eleven years before he was bailed.

Impacts of the ruling on law enforcement in the United States

Remarkably, the ruling impacted the law enforcement in the United States in some ways, and the law enforcement continues. One impact is that it anticipated restraining bad behavior in obtaining confessions from suspects who were guilty and also laid out practices which could be used. Another impact is that how police got admission was seen to be more crucial than if the offender was guilty or not. However, the law was also observed to have some depraved side which made it difficult for the police to fight law-breaking. Additionally, police did not have grounds to arrest individuals based on confession since it is later suppressed by the Miranda violation and eventually troughs the prosecution. Consequently, the police will continue to use admissions as evident without future expectations on how the Court may ultimately rule with the approach that even though the confession may be suppressed the criminal will in some other way end up in jail (Hogrogian, 2012). The importance of protecting people accuse of a crime is because a suspect is innocent until he or she pleads guilty and prohibits any significant or cruel penalty. Additionally, it is important since no one should ever be found guilty without enough evidence, Miranda law protect people’s right to fair trial as well as to an attorney.

The Court’s decision on law enforcement agencies in the United States

The Court decision on law enforcement agencies in the United States has various impacts. The law enforcement operates mainly through the government police agencies. The determination of the agencies is to examine the accused criminal commotion, discuss the results obtained from the examination and temporary detain the suspected criminal. The first impact is as a result of Fifth Amendment right for defendants not to make self-incriminating declarations the police agencies are entitled to inform anyone in their custody four things. First, they have the right to remain silent, if the suspect chooses to say no word the police must honor that right. Second, they should inform them of anything that they say would be used against them in a court of law. Third, they have the right to the attorney and finally if they cannot afford an attorney the government will provide for them. The question behind the rule is if the police forced individuals for confession (Riley, 2014). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not bring forward a constitution that limits police questioning but one that is voluntary and free.

The impact on obtaining confessions

The second impact is that; confession should be obtained with no violence or threats nor from any implied or direct undertakings, nor through the effort any incorrect inspiration. The impact of the law enforcement from Miranda is that confession which was given freely by the suspect would be omitted if he or she realizes his or her rights because Miranda caution was not known. In this scenario, after being advised the suspect may appeal as an alternative of confessing. The lack of confession as evidence would obstruct investigations of a criminal and eventually set harmful convicts free. The impact has its positive part where the accused is free and can bring out their confession without being threatened or other forces made against him or her, therefore, innocent people are set free. However, the law may have a negative impact if the offender has demanded the Miranda rights and one is guilty of the offense since it would result in the release of a criminal who should be serving in jail.

References

Burgan, M. (2007). Miranda v. Arizona. Minneapolis, Minn.: Compass Point Books.

Hogrogian, J. (2012). Miranda v. Arizona. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books.

Riley, G. (2014). Miranda v. Arizona. Hillside, NJ, U.S.A.: Enslow Publishers.