Miranda v. Arizona
Introduction
In this case pitting Miranda and Arizona in 1966, the US Supreme Court had ruled that a criminal suspect who was under detainment had the right to be informed of the available Constitutional rights (Inbau, and Fred 1450. This was to be carried out preceding any form of questioning and the defendant was to be informed of the right to engage an attorney and against any form of self-accusation. This legal redress commenced in the early 1963 when Ernesto Miranda, a US Citizen from Phoenix was arrested and charged with several counts of offences ranging from cases of rape to a number of violent robberies he was accused to have masterminded (Inbau, and Fred 1454). However, prior to his arrest and subsequent police interrogation, the relevant authority failed to inform Miranda of his rights.
After a two hour long interrogation, Miranda was allegedly found guilty after confessing to the have committed the crimes (Inbau, and Fred 1455). Notably, the accused (Miranda) had a history of mental illness and having dropped from school at 9th grade, many wondered the authenticity of the confession statement. During the trial, the judge, based on the recorded confessions, found Miranda guilty and sentenced him to long prison confinement (Inbau, and Fred 1456).
Upon a successful appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, Miranda and the lawyer claimed that the Police did not inform him of his constitutional rights and that the confession was obtained from him in unconstitutional manner (Inbau, and Fred 1457). The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision by the subordinate court to detain Miranda, and he made a final appeal to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court agreed to review his case in 1966 to determine the constitutionality of the way the Police obtained confession statements from Miranda (Inbau, and Fred 1459).
The Supreme Court in its ruling reiterated that indeed Miranda had the right against self-incrimination and that this has been part of the American laws (Thomas and George 37). According to the judges at the Supreme Court, an accused person had right to be protected from any abuse or unnecessary pressure and influence that may oblige an individual to confess a crime they might not have been party to (Thomas and George 38).
According to the Court, Miranda had been deprived of his fundamental rights prior to the interrogation and may have led to false confession statement (Thomas and George 37). Similarly, Miranda had the right to an attorney that the Police did not take into serious consideration before starting to interrogate Miranda. According to the then Chief Justice Warren, Miranda might have been under intense and compelling situations full of fear during the interrogation processes, and, as a result, might have given out the confession under pressure and intimidation (Thomas and George 39).
In the face of the evident rampant ignorant application of the law by the American masses and authorities then, the Court came up with a statement that forever changed the way police handled suspects. Infamously referred to as the Miranda rights, the intent was to protect the accused persons from unlawful detainment without proper information on the individual rights and freedom (Schrock, Thomas, Robert, and Ronald 37).With these, the police were obliged to be informing the suspects of the rights to an attorney, and if the accused could not afford one, tell them that the state would provide one for them (Schrock, Thomas, Robert, and Ronald 38). The police, upon apprehending suspects, had to advise the accused to remain silent as anything they said after that would be used against them in Court of Law.
The way “Miranda Rights” has changed the American law system
The ruling by Supreme Court in 1966 on the unconstitutionality of the way Miranda’s confession were obtained forever changed the US laws governing the rights of an accused person (Schrock, Thomas, Robert, and Ronald 39). In the year 2010, the US Supreme Court revisited the 1966 Miranda ruling and modified the “Miranda Rights” to incorporate a greater scope. Currently, the US accused citizens have a number of rights dubbed “Miranda Rights” that aims at protecting the right and liberty of an accused person (Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur 664). For instance, an accused person has the right to be informed to remain silent and to engage an attorney before and during interrogation processes. Correspondingly, in a case where the accused person cannot afford a lawyer, the State has the obligation to provide one. The accused person has the right to remain silent until an attorney arrives and even then, then they should not be intimidated to confess (Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur 665).
Significance of Miranda Ruling to the US Criminal Justice System
The Miranda ruling has to a great extent helped change the US Criminal Justice System (Graham, & Kenneth 59). This is evidenced as currently, the Police are effectively blocked from obtaining any unlawful confession statement from the accused without properly following the due process of law. In essence, the Miranda warnings have become part of the normal practicing by the US police force as they are obliged to inform the suspects of their Miranda Rights before continuing with the interrogations. The defendants are told that they are free not to answer any further question during arrest and only do so in the presence of a lawyer (Graham, & Kenneth 62).
Reasons why the Miranda Rights should be abolished
According to some US lawmakers, the ruling on Miranda case and the subsequent introduction of the Miranda Rights have effectively blocked the Police from gathering crucial information and confessions from the suspects when being interrogated (Graham, & Kenneth 63). As a result, the defendants are often cut loose and released to the society endangering the lives of the populace. Similarly, according to these lawmakers, other active channels that can be used to protect the rights of an accused other than the Miranda Rights exists and should be employed. For instance, the Police may use videotapes to record the suspects’ interrogation processes. In addition, the Miranda ruling sends the message that the rights of an accused person is more crucial than that of the innocent populace. No evidence exists relating any form of illegal conduct by the police to the suspects to the violation of these rights and, therefore, the validity if these rights have been questioned (Graham, & Kenneth 64). Lastly, the cost and implication of this ruling is too high as their not established legal ground to appeal. For instance, in the case of a terror suspect, by the reading the Miranda Rights to the accused, the Government shall be putting pubic and national security at stake and is an exceptional case. The Boston Marathon bombing suspect was not read for the Miranda Rights as the officials did not want to invoke the public and national safety exceptions (Graham, & Kenneth 69).
Work cited
Elsen, Sheldon H., and Arthur Rosett. "Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona." Columbia Law Review (2007) (Eds.): 645-670.
Graham Jr, Kenneth W. "What is Custodial Interrogation: California's Anticipatory Application of Miranda v. Arizona." UCLA L. Rev. 14 (2006) (Eds.): 59.
Inbau, Fred E. "Over-Reaction: The Mischief of Miranda v. Arizona." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (2009) (Eds.): 1449-1464.
Schrock, Thomas S., Robert C. Welsh, and Ronald Collins. "Interrogational Rights: Reflections on Miranda v. Arizona." S. Cal. L. Rev. 37-42 (2008) (Eds.): 1.
Thomas III, George C. "End of the Road for Miranda v. Arizona: On the History and Future of Rules for Police Interrogation, The." Am. Crim. L. Rev. 37 (2000): 1.
