Miranda v. Arizona -what was the out come of the case and why i chose to report on it - Term Paper Example

In short, this case succeeded in writing a new chapter in the criminal justice system in America which forced me to select this case and to write about it. A kidnapping and sexual assault occurred in Phoenix, Arizona, in March 1963. On March 13 Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested in his home, taken to the police station, identified by the victim, and taken into an interrogation room. Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. Two hours later, investigators emerged from the room with a written confession signed by Miranda.

It included a typed disclaimer, also signed by Miranda, stating that he had “full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make maybe used against me,” and that he had knowingly waived those rights. Two weeks later at a preliminary hearing, Miranda again was denied counsel. At his trial he did have a lawyer, whose objections to the use of Miranda's signed confession as evidence were overruled. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape, and received a 20-year sentence (Miranda v.

Arizona (1966)) The above case raised lot of constitutional issues. According to The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an accused or a witness has the right to protect himself from being forced to incriminate. In other words, the accused has the right to stay silent in police custody or to consult with a counsel before answering the questions of the investigating officer. In other words The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives a privilege against self-incrimination to the suspect or accused.

Earlier, prior to this case, the investigating officers in United States were using all types of physical and psychological tortures to force the accused to accept the crime. They used circumstantial evidences to arrest the suspected people when a crime occurs. However, circumstantial evidences need not be hundred percent correct in all criminal cases. It is quite possible that a smart criminal can commit crimes and mislead the investigating officers towards innocent people with the help of created evidences.

If the police officer was not smart enough, he will take those circumstantial evidences or evidences collected from the spot seriously and arrest the innocent person. If that person was unaware of his rights in police custody, he may confess the crime in order to escape from the brutal interrogation methods of police. Thus, it is quite possible that an innocent may be punished by the court. According to the criminal justice system in America, not even a single innocent person should be punished even if thousands of criminals escaped from punishment.

In other words, the criminal justice system urges the investigating officers to thinks twice or thrice before arresting person for a criminal activity. An accused has been given the right to consult with a lawyer before answering the questions of an investigating officer. It is quite possible that a smart investigating officer may ask misleading questions to the accused and force the accused to accept the crime. The investigating officer may have better knowledge about the criminal procedures than the accused and he can utilize that knowledge effectively to make an innocent person, a criminal.

In order to avoid such