The Miranda versus Arizona Case Research Essay

The Miranda v. Arizona Case

The Miranda v. Arizona case decision is discussed, as well as how it came to be. The case started in 1963 when Ernesto Miranda, a citizen of Phoenix, was detained and charged with kidnapping, rape, and robbery. But prior to the interrogations, the accused was not told of his rights. He supposedly confessed to committing the crimes after a two-hour police interrogation. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in jail for both kidnapping and rape after the court used the confession as evidence. The defendant filed an appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that the police's method of getting the statement was unconstitutional. However, the court disagreed and upheld the sentence. Miranda did not stop at that point but went ahead to appeal to the United States Supreme Court which in the year 1966 reviewed the case.

The Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial could not introduce Miranda’s admission as a shred of evidence in a criminal proceeding since the police had not first informed him of his rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney (Jefferson, 2015). The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment states the warnings which the police are responsible for reading them to a suspect to prevent them from being a witness against themselves (Cole, & Smith, 2010). Also, the Sixth Amendment gives assurance to criminal perpetrator the right to an attorney. The reasons were stated to protect defendants from police violence intended to compel them to confessions. Additionally, the suspect’s right to a lawyer is a fundamental right since the attorney would eliminate evils and fear in interrogation process and the defendant would tell their story effectively (Sonneborn, 2004). Therefore, without the two essential rights, the statements obtained from the suspect cannot be the product of their willing choice. The rights protect vast ignorance of the law.

Effect of the Supreme Court Ruling

The effect of the ruling of the Supreme Court concerning the case was as a result of consolidating four cases, which the defendant admitted guilt after being exposed to various techniques of interrogation without being informed of their Fifth Amendment rights in the process of examination (Andrews, 2012). The United States Supreme Court declared that whenever a suspect is taken into police custody, he or she must be informed about the Fifth Amendment right before being questioned so that they do not make self-incriminating statements (Merino, 2013). Anyone in the police custody must be informed four things as a result of Miranda (Kelly-Gangi, 2006). Firstly, they have the right to remain silent. Secondly, that anything they say will and can be used against them in a court of law (Composition and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 2014). Thirdly, they have the right to an attorney. Finally, if they cannot meet the expense of a lawyer one will be appointed for them. If the rights are not told to the defendant, and they happen to make a confession, the defendant attorney would challenge the confession in the court, and the judge will find it unlawful (Thomas, & Eig, 2012). The right was applied to Miranda’s case, and since none of the rights was afforded to him, his conviction was reversed, and he was later convicted devoid of the confession.

Impact on Law Enforcement

In conclusion, the Miranda decision has a substantial impact on law enforcement where police have found it difficult to obtain a confession from suspects. Few admissions are made by the defendants, and this has made it difficult for the police to solve crimes. The police were forced to abandon coercive techniques which were unconstitutional. The Miranda rules were put in place to safeguard suspect from police who used force to obtain a confession. However, this does not limit the process of attaining justice in the society since alternative options should be undertaken to verify if the suspect committed the crime.

References

Andrews, N. (2012). The three paths of justice. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Cole, G., & Smith, C. (2010). The American system of criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Composition and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (2014). Washington.

Jefferson, M. (2015). Criminal Law. Pearson Education Limited.

Kelly-Gangi, C. (2006). Miranda v. Arizona and the rights of the accused. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers.

Merino, N. (2013). Criminal justice. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

Sonneborn, L. (2004). Miranda v. Arizona. New York: Rosen Pub. Group.

Thomas, K., & Eig, L. (2012). The Constitution of the United States of America.