Term Paper on "Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S"

Term Paper 3 pages (1201 words) Sources: 1+

[EXCERPT] . . . .

S. 436, 472) Suspects must also have the fact explained that if they cannot afford an attorney, the state will provide one free of charge. (384 U.S. 436, 474)

The Court justified the requirement that these rights be explained because any time an individual is detained or questioned by authorities, "the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized." (384 U.S. 436, 479) The only verifiable method of providing that all suspects are aware of their rights is to regulate a reading of them before any interaction with law enforcement occurs. The court reversed Miranda's conviction because it was not clear that he was aware of his rights; just because he signed a statement claiming "that he had full knowledge of his legal rights does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights." (384 U.S. 436, 493) Setting up the requisite "reading of the rights" would provide a more objective measure for ensuring that each suspect was aware of the remedies and rights available to him.

The Court rationalized this decision by explaining the FBI's procedure, which was standardized so that all suspects were made aware of their rights. The FBI procedure included that "both suspects and persons under arrest...ha[ve] a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court." (384 U.S. 436, 485) The FBI also required that agents inform suspects of "his right to free counsel if he is unable to pay," and noted that the "warning is given to the suspect at the very outset of the interview." (384 U.S. 436, 486) When requiring that all law enforcement agencies inform suspects of these same rights, the Supreme Court saw no substantial burden in requiring the same behavior of state and local agencies. They also noted that "the argument that the FBI deals with different crimes than are dealt with by state authorities does not mitigate the significance [of the warnings]" (384 U.S. 436, 487) Any difference in crimes committed does not, as the Court correctly asserted, require a different treatment with regard to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and against self-incrimination.

Although the Miranda decision has been called judicial activism and it has been said that it over-regulates behavior by law enforcement authorities, both of these claims are patently false. All the Court did in Miranda was uphold rights explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights (against self-incrimination and to a fair trial, e.g. counsel) and establish an objective, measurable method of ensuring that suspects were aware of these rights. If rights were read and verification was obtained by the suspect that they were understood, there could be no confusion later over whether or not a suspect knew of his right to counsel, or that he had the option not to talk.

This decision was absolutely necessary in providing for equal treatment among suspects and ensuring that all individuals who interact with law enforcement officials are fully aware of their constitutional rights and, as a result, cannot later claim ignorance of these rights as a method of defense. This decision actually strengthens law enforcement's range instead of limiting it, as the cries of judicial activism claim, because it eliminates one potential defense -- that of ignorance of one's rights. The Miranda decision not only protects suspects and defendants by ensuring they know that they are entitled to counsel and to silence, but also protects the legal system from challenges to otherwise valid convictions based on a suspect's ignorance of the law.

Works Cited

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478… READ MORE

How to Reference "Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S" Term Paper in a Bibliography

Related Term Papers:

Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Term Paper

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966, dealt with the admissibility of statements made during "custodial interrogation" under the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (723 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief Case Name Term Paper

Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief

Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436

Decided: 1966

Character: Defendant Miranda sought review of the decision of the Supreme Court of Arizona, which… read more

Term Paper 6 pages (1924 words) Sources: 2 Style: APA Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Legal Issues in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 Term Paper

Legal Issues in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

The issues and their importance

Justice Warren summarized the issues in the case in the opening paragraph of his opinon,… read more

Term Paper 5 pages (1799 words) Sources: 4 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) Thesis

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), how had Congress exercised authority over the INS, and why did the Supreme Court find this to be invalid?

Initially, the Immigration and… read more

Thesis 5 pages (1450 words) Sources: 7 Style: APA Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Miranda v. Arizona Term Paper

Criminal Justice - Miranda

MODERN IMPLICATIONS of MIRANDA PRINCIPLES

Background and History of the Miranda Ruling:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case… read more

Term Paper 6 pages (1637 words) Sources: 2 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>