Criminal Procedure as Regards Arrest, Interrogation, and Identification Procedures - Essay Example

In this paper, I will attempt to address not only how Miranda altered the balance of power between those accused of a crime and the need for police to do their jobs, but also how Miranda warnings could affect those with diminished mental capacity, and measures that could be taken to ensure complete understanding of guaranteed individual rights by anyone, regardless of their mental capacity. Response Paper Number Two: The Miranda Warnings as They Pertain to Criminal Procedure Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966): Helping the Accused While Hampering the Accuser The landmark case of Miranda v.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) set a new legal precedent, and the repercussions are still being felt today. The result of the decision in Miranda, 384 U.S. at 436 was that the confession of one Ernesto Miranda was declared by the United States Supreme Court to be inadmissible in his trial, due to the fact that Miranda had not been advised that he had the right to remain silent, or to have counsel present prior to making the confession. Because of this, according to the Fifth Amendment, which states, in part, that “No person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, his rights had been violated, and his confession was therefore inadmissible.

Directly due to this, the conviction that had been originally found was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new trial. This decision by the United States Supreme Court, in considering the balance between abuse of individual rights and freedom for the innocent while allowing police to do their job in maintaining justice swung the balance powerfully in favor of those that stand accused of crimes, while negatively impacting the interests of the police in doing their job to put those who are guilty in prison.

Miranda warnings are the same overall, no matter who receives them; they were designed that way to give a standard warning of rights that the accused was entitled to. The first sentence states that the accused has “the right to remain silent” (Scheb & Scheb II, 2012). This means that as long as a person says absolutely nothing, unless the police have some form of hard evidence, they most likely cannot gain a conviction. Professor James Duane backs this up in the video lecture “Don’t Talk to Police” when he gives eight top reasons as to why no one, under any circumstances, should ever talk to the police.

Chief among these reasons is that even if someone is innocent, something that is said, however innocent, even if it is the barest tidbit of information, could cause them to be accused or even convicted of a crime (Duane, 2008). That being said, again, as long as the accused remains silent, they retain the power of not only their right to do so but the power to hinder the police that are trying to convict them. The Miranda warnings also shifted power to the accused while negatively impacting police in their last statement, which states that the accused has “the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you” (Scheb & Scheb II, 2012).

All that the accused has to do is to state that they wish an attorney, and the interrogation must cease