Sunday, October 13, 2019
SHOCK INCARCERATION Essay -- essays research papers
     Miranda Warnings      You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda Warnings including; definition, history, importance to society, constitutional issues, and pro’s and con’s of having the Miranda Warnings incorporated into standard police procedures.      The Miranda Warning, is the requirement set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona June 13, 1966 that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: the right to remain silent, the right to be told that anything he/she said while in custody can and will be used against him/her in a court of law, and that he/she has the right to legal counsel. The Miranda Warnings inform the arrested of constitutional rights and are intended to prevent self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Neubauer 2002).      The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states â€Å"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation†(Murphy1996). By neglecting to inform a suspect of his Constitutional rights the due course... ...nbsp; 1. Frieden, T. (1999, November 10). Government files brief seeking to preserve Miranda warnings.      CNN. Retrieved Saturday May 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/02/miranda.warnings.01/      2. Ivers, G. (2002). American Constitutional Law: Power and Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.      3. Miranda v. Arizona: Certiorari to The Supreme Court of Arizona. (1966). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved April 23, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Miranda/      4.. Mount, S. (2003). The Miranda Warning. Retrieved Saturday May 1, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html      5. Murphy, G. (1996, October 16). Historical Documents: The Bill of Rights. Cleveland Free-Net. Retrieved April 23, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html           6. Neubauer, D.W. (2002). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth: Thomson Learning.     Â
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.