Term Paper on "Miranda Rights"

Term Paper 15 pages (4566 words) Sources: 15 Style: APA

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Miranda Rights

Criminal Justice Courts - Miranda Rights

Exploration of Utility of Miranda Rights in Modern Society

Opposition to Miranda Rights

Discourse of Efficacy and Controversy Related to Miranda Use

Implications of Miranda Rights

How changes in policy may or may not benefit those affected by the Miranda Rights

Discussion of how proposal and conclusions would affect the cjs.

Abstract discourse and analysis of the Miranda Rights, providing an analytical debate of both sides of the current legal issue in constitutional criminal justice. Researcher proposes that the Miranda Rights are questionable related to their efficacy largely due to the misuse of the Miranda Rights by the Law Enforcement Agents "enforcing" or failing to enforce it. This researcher paper reviews an issue the courts have recently decided involving the Miranda Rights, beginning with a factual analysis of the issue and synopsis of how it pertains to current criminal justice events. The researcher also proclaims why this issue is worthy of consideration and provides the present status of the issue as well as both sides of the issue prior to offering any conclusions about the case at hand.

Introduction

The Miranda Rights are a subject of controversy and interest in the criminal justice field. Within the United States, the Miranda Rights refer to a warning provide by law force agents when a suspect becomes apprehended under police custody for one situation or another. The Miranda Rights also involve the courts, as they are presented to witnesses when they are in court and asked questions regarding their recollection or involvement with a suspected criminal or suspected criminal activity. The Miranda Rights for many are part of the rights provided to citizens as part of the Constitution. The Miranda Rights clearly state the incarcerated individual or one in police custody cannot be harmed by any statements made that are incriminating if the law enforcement agent in question failed to delivery the Miranda rights. There are many cases brought before the courts involving suspects that proclaim their Miranda Rights have been violated. This research proposal will review many such cases to determine the efficacy of the Miranda Rights in modern day law enforcement.

Purpose/Review

The purpose of this paper is an in-depth exploration of the utility of the Miranda Rights. The author argues the Miranda Rights are not always used efficiently and thus, may be subject to question. To understand how the Miranda Rights affect citizens, it is critical to first examine case decisions involving the Miranda Rights to see if law enforcement agents are using the Miranda Rights correctly. This evaluation of cases will also enable the researcher to identify current gaps in research and determine whether courts have violated the Miranda Rights clause in many cases held before the courts.

The Miranda Rights or warnings as some refer to them were first put into effect during the late 1990s. The case of Miranda v. Arizona was among the first cases to show just how the Miranda Rights can protect a suspect utilizing the fifth amendment of the constitution to proclaim their innocence until proven guilty. The fifth amendment claims that no U.S. citizen can be coercively forced to incriminate themselves when questioned, and if they feel such has occurred, the criminal may plead the fifth amendment to protect their rights to privacy. Many refer to the fifth amendment protection as the "right to silence" or the legal right of a criminal suspect to withhold or remain silent on issues except when questioned on matters including his or her birth, name and address. Other personal identifying information may also be collected by law enforcement agents.

There are several cases brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, none the least of which is the Miranda v. Arizona U.S. 384 No. 759, which includes a conglomeration of many preceding cases including the case of California v. Stewart No. 545; Vignera v. New York, No. 760; and Westover v. United States, v. No. 761. The Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was largely hailed as a landmark case in which the Supreme Court argued in favor of the Miranda Rights or warning, stating a criminal was innocent until proven guilty and had the right to withhold information and request an attorney before implicating him or herself to the authorities relative to a crime. This right helped protect the parties involved from prosecution by the law if they incriminate themselves accidentally or without meaning during the arrest and incarceration procedure (384 U.S. 436, 1966).

Each of these cases mentioned above were situations where the police placed into their custody a citizen for questioning, and placed the incarcerated individual into a room for questioning. The room in each situation was isolated and the individual in custody was denied the right to a lawyer and/or his or he rights to remain silent as given by the fifth amendment of the United States. The defendants in these cases were not provided with information about their Miranda Rights at the very beginning of the case where law enforcement agents took them into custody. Despite this in the preliminary case the defendants were incarcerated; in the case of California v. Stewart, No. 584 however, the courts reversed the decision in part because of the Miranda Rights clause.

In many cases law enforcement agents suggest they may withhold the right to silence and bring into custody and isolation a suspected criminal if they feel they are in need of protection from the individual being questioned. This process is demonstrated by the Escobedo v. Illinois decision where the law enforcement agents successfully argued they may need to use protective devices including isolation to assist with law enforcement interrogation. In the Escobedo case (1964), a young Mexican person and sister were arrested and taken into custody for interrogation regarding the homicide of the young adult's brother-in-law (Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964). In this case the Mexican Petitioner or defendant requested the services of a lawyer, as was his constitutional right, and made no statements regarding his involvement with the alleged shooting that he was incarcerated for. The lawyer in this case noted the Petitioner did not receive an explanation of his Miranda Rights, and subsequently made damaging or self-incriminating statements while in custody. He did not have the opportunity once in police custody to see his lawyer for counsel to remain silent. In this case however, the lawyer was able to obtain documents that allowed for her release because of these terms. However the individual did make incriminating statement that was presented into court and the court subsequently convicted the Petitioner. This conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court however, mostly because there was a wealth of documented testimony stating the defendant was not able to consult with his lawyer, and the Petitioner was made to believe during the interrogation process that he would have permission to go home once he implicated someone in the crime.

The actions of the interrogators and law enforcement agents in this case clearly provided the suspect with immunity because they violated the fifteenth and sixth amendments of the Constitution by violating the petitioner's right to the Miranda Rights, to clear understanding of the matters at hand and violated the Petitioners right to silence. Evidence that was submitted that first resulted in incarceration was not permissible as law enforcement agents gathered this information without informing the Petitioner of his rights. The law enforcement agents argued they held the prisoner in customer and isolation because the case was a homicide case and they had reason to fear for their safety. However, their failure to allow the lawyer to see the Petitioner or the Petitioner to consult with the lawyer resulted in a violation of the law.

This is one of many cases in which much the same has happened. Other cases where convictions were reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States include trial 375 U.S. 902 and 357 U.S. 433. In 375 vs. 902, the case of Corey v. United States (1963) the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the petitioner a reversal of decision providing for his freedom, stating the Constitution guarantees defendants the right to trial and adequate counsel, and the evidence gathered without fully informing the Petitioner of their legal rights is not evidence that is fully valid under the Constitution of the United States. In the case of Crooker v. People of the State of California (1958) evidence implicating the defendant were admitted into the preliminary hearing however the evidence involved testimony given before the petitioner was fully informed of his legal rights and his ability to withhold information in absence of a lawyer on request. The confessions taken were admitted initially even after the individual in question asked for the assistance of a lawyer, a fact that was dismissed by the earlier courts. The decision in the Crooker case was reversed by the Supreme Court for this very reason.

It is common for the Supreme Court in early history to overturn convictions by lower courts… READ MORE

How to Reference "Miranda Rights" Term Paper in a Bibliography

Related Term Papers:

Citizens of the United States Term Paper

With the popularity of criminal investigation films and television shows, Miranda Rights have been plastered all over the screen. This has falsely provided many Americans with the idea that they… read more

Term Paper 10 pages (3817 words) Sources: 10 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

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

---

Miranda Warnings and Miranda-Based Law Thesis

Fifth Amendment Miranda Issues

The Miranda Doctrine:

Under the landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona (348 U.S. 346) decisions, evidence procured by police authorities during interrogations of criminal suspects may not… read more

Thesis 4 pages (1097 words) Sources: 4 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Miranda Warnings Are Given by the Police Term Paper

Miranda warnings are given by the police to criminal suspects in police custody as well as in custodial situations before they are about to be asked questions regarding a crime.… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (590 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

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  >>