Shock Incarceration
Essay Preview: Shock Incarceration
Report this essay
Miranda Warnings
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda Warnings including; definition, history, importance to society, constitutional issues, and pros and cons of having the Miranda Warnings incorporated into standard police procedures.
The Miranda Warning, is the requirement set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona June 13, 1966 that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: the right to remain silent, the right to be told that anything he/she said while in custody can and will be used against him/her in a court of law, and that he/she has the right to legal counsel. The Miranda Warnings inform the arrested of constitutional rights and are intended to prevent self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Neubauer 2002).
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Murphy1996). By neglecting to inform a suspect of his Constitutional rights the due course of legal proceedings according to the rules and forms established for the protection of rights has been violated. In other words, the suspect has been denied his right to protection from being unjustly deprived of life and liberty for failure to abide by due process of law (Ivers 2002).
The Constitution reserves several rights for suspects of a crime. One of the fears of the authors of the U.S. Constitution was that the government could act however it wanted to by saying that an individual was a suspected criminal. Just by a person being suspected of committing a crime doesnt necessarily mean that their Constitutional rights are waived. The rights set forth by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights (Mount 2003). Years ago police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most people could only name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. Law enforcements position at the time was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the persons fault for disclosing the information and not invoking their fifth amendment right (Frieden 1999).
Disclosing information without knowledge of his rights was the center of the issue in Miranda v. Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18 year-old mentally challenged woman. He was taken in by authorities for questioning and signed a confession to the crime. Which, turned out to be the states only piece of evidence linking him to the crime. Miranda was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present during his questioning. At trial, Mirandas lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, however, the motion was denied. In 1966 the case came before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to police could not be used as evidence because Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his Constitutional rights (Miranda v. Arizona 1966).
In a series of four cases, one case being Miranda v. Arizona in which the defendant was questioned by law enforcement in a room where he was cut of from the outside world. None of the defendants in any of the four cases was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all of the cases the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All four cases ended with convictions. The Supreme Court held: 1.the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination (Miranda v. Arizona 1966). The Court also felt that the atmosphere and environment in which interrogation took place was inherently intimidating and worked to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Certain preventive measures needed to be taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, otherwise no statement obtained from a defendant could truly be the product of free choice. The defendants right against self-incrimination, is the essential mainstay of the United States adversary system and guarantees to the individual the “right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will,” during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations (Miranda v. Arizona 1966).
Today, for law enforcement officials, the Miranda warnings have been deeply absorbed into standard operating procedures. 38 years after Miranda v. Arizona was decided some have made attempts to overturn the decision, however, the majority of law enforcement officials feel that the decision should remain in effect. Miranda warnings have become extremely familiar to the majority of U.S. citizens over the past decades through movies and television. Miranda warnings have come to play a very unique