Term Paper on "Miranda v. Arizona"

Term Paper 6 pages (1637 words) Sources: 2 Style: APA

[EXCERPT] . . . .

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 that fundamentally changed the policies and procedures by which U.S. police interrogate criminal suspects. Failure to abide by Miranda requirements triggers a remedy of excluding the use of confessions and other information elicited from the defendant at trial (Hall 1992). The actual circumstances that gave rise to the ruling occurred in 1963, with the arrest of Ernesto Miranda for rape, after which he confessed during police questioning without the presence of legal counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction ruling that the custodial interrogation by police of Miranda violated the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination. He was subsequently convicted in a new trial through different evidence in the form of eye-witness testimony identifying him as the rapist.

The Miranda case lead to the incorporation of specific procedures designed to protect the constitutional rights of criminal suspects to refuse to submit to police interrogation by advising them, in advance of any custodial questioning, that they have the right to remain silent and to request legal representation in connection with any such questioning. Information obtained in violation of Miranda must be excluded from use by the prosecution at trial subject to certain specific exemptions, such as where the same evidence is demonstrated to have been subject to inevitable discovery through other permissible means (Hendrie 1997).

Implications and Law Enforcement Standards of Miranda: Prior to the Miranda case, it was not at all uncommon for police to interrogate criminal suspects and arrestees at length without the benefit of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, very often leading to the suspect's providing inculpating information or a full confession outright, on the basis of which a conviction was later secured at trial.

The process violated the fundamental constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination (Hall 1992).

In many cases, movies and other media entertainment have led many lay people to misunderstand what the Miranda rules actually require of law enforcement, for example, referring to the typical warnings issued before custodial questioning to "Miranda rights" and further believing that Miranda warnings must necessarily be issued immediately upon arrest. Actually, there is no constitutional right to receiving Miranda warnings upon arrest, nor must police advise suspects of any rights before they disclose evidence of guilt or provide confessions, where the information is provided by the suspect spontaneously, or where interrogation precedes arrest or similar detention and deprivation of liberties. In fact, Miranda warnings simply ensure that valuable evidence is not "tainted" and therefore unusable by the prosecution at trial (Dershowitz 2002).

Interview Procedures and Constitutional Requirements of Miranda:

The constitutional requirement of Miranda apply only to police questioning that takes place in conjunction with arrest or with other forms of custodial questioning short of arrest under circumstances that would indicate to the average person that he is not free to terminate the interview and leave. In that case, formal arrest is not required to trigger the requirement to advise suspects of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in advance of any questioning to preserve its admissibility at trial (Dershowitz 2002).

Likewise, police may interrogate suspects at length before their arrest, except that they may not purposely delay arrest for the tactical purpose of obtaining inadmissible evidence or confessions "outside of Miranda" expressly with the intention of subsequently using that information to secure admissible evidence or confessions after advising suspects of their Miranda rights. Prior to 2005, this procedure had evolved as a means of side-stepping Miranda requirements by many law enforcement agencies (Hoover 2005).

According to Miranda, arrest and other forms of custody that deprive individuals of their liberty triggers the need to provide Fifth and Sixth Amendment warnings only in conjunction with interrogation. Therefore, police may allow suspects and arrestees to talk and to provide spontaneous information of guilt or confessions without jeopardizing their admissibility, so long as police do not artificially delay formal arrest for that specific purpose or otherwise attempt to encourage admissions in a manner designed to circumvent Miranda rules (Hoover 2005).

Generally, Miranda requires police to (1) advise subjects of their custodial interrogation or questioning that they have the right to refuse to answer any questions; (2) advise subjects of their right to legal counsel before answering any questions; (3) inform subjects that any statements they make may be used against them at trial; and (4) terminate any questioning immediately once a subject requests legal counsel.

Additionally, various states have included other variations, such as the details of appointment of legal counsel without cost to the subject (Hall 1992).

The Beneficial Effect of Miranda on Modern American Law Enforcement:

Miranda redressed a fundamental problem in American law enforcement.

Previously, police interrogation procedures violated the intent of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that very specifically prohibited forced testimony and self-incrimination and that guaranteed legal counsel in conjunction with prosecution for criminal offenses, respectively. By routinely questioning criminal suspects at length and without the benefit of counsel, police procedures often ignored those fundamental constitutional rights altogether (Hendrie 1997).

Critics have suggested that the exclusion of confessions and other evidence of guilt from use by the prosecution at trial is a detriment to society because it makes prosecuting crime more difficult. However, when applied properly, the warnings required by Miranda rules do not necessarily undermine effective prosecution at trial; on the other hand, they protect suspects and arrestees from being interrogated under coercive circumstances in which they are induced to waive their constitutional rights without ever knowing of them.

In this respect, Miranda principles are crucial to the liberties expressed in the Constitution, because the alternative would allow coercive compelled self-incrimination of the guilty and innocent alike. In fact, before the modern era of American law enforcement, coercive tactics and interrogations often elicited false confessions from the innocent. In many other countries, criminal suspects may be held indefinitely, deprived of food, water, and other basic necessities, and even tortured for the purposes of obtaining information, evidence of guilt, or confessions.

Miranda Principles in the Age of Global Terrorism:

Miranda principles apply to all civilian criminal suspects in the U.S. even those involved with terrorism. On the other hand, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have raised the issue of balancing the rights of the accused against the safety of society.

Specifically, where suspected terrorists may hold time-sensitive information of imminent future attacks capable of killing thousands (or even millions), the suggestion has been raised that interrogation under these circumstances ought to proceed without regard for certain constitutional protections that ordinarily apply to criminal matters in the U.S. (Dershowitz 2002).

In principle, Miranda rules relate mainly to the prosecution of criminal charges at trial and in this respect, terrorist suspects implicated and arrested in conjunction with (past) terrorist acts must be entitled to the full protection of constitutional law. In that case, Miranda warnings and requirements serve the same purpose for which they were designed: namely, to protect the innocent and guilty alike from compelled self-incrimination. However, the prospect of future terrorist acts may be a different matter altogether.

Harvard professor Allan Dershowitz (2002) lays out the scenario posed by the arrest of a suspect with information of an imminent attack on the U.S. using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the form of nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological weapons capable of killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of innocent civilians. In that situation, the application of Miranda principles would prohibit any questioning after arrest once the suspect invokes his constitutional rights, even where the subject possesses specific information necessary for authorities to prevent the deaths of scores of… READ MORE

How to Reference "Miranda v. Arizona" 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 vs. Arizona the Miranda Rule Essay

Miranda vs. Arizona

The Miranda rule makes it illegal for a suspect to incriminate themselves or even to make any sort of a confession unless they were properly advised of… read more

Essay 2 pages (850 words) Sources: 1+ 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

---

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

---

Judicial Process Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Essay

Judicial Process

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was arguably one of the biggest decisions made by the Supreme Court in terms of how it affects and protects civil rights. The Miranda… read more

Essay 2 pages (673 words) Sources: 2 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>