The Miranda Rights - Term Paper Example

The Miranda Rights Introduction The Miranda rights constitute informing of an individual who has just been arrested or one who is about to be interviewed while in police custody of what they should or should not say. The statements made by an individual in police custody can be used as evidence against them in a court of law. This right is guaranteed by 5th Amendment of US constitution. The provision serves to ensure that individuals do not provide information that incriminates them and exposes them to being jailed (Burgan, Shouba & Sluys, 96). There have been cases that have been dismissed in a court of law because the suspect was not read his/ her Miranda rights. Information that has been sourced from a criminal suspect that was not read his/ her Miranda rights is considered as being unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to by all individuals. Most criminal suspects that confess to committing a crime are forced to do so while under police custody. Law enforcement officers who interview such suspects usually make them feel that confessing is the only option of getting out of their situation easily. However, if a suspect is made to feel as if they have to confess, and they actually confess without having had their Miranda rights read to them, the evidence from what they say to incriminate themselves is admissible in court. History and purpose of Miranda rights The Miranda court case was introduced in 1966 in the case of Miranda versus Arizona. In this particular case, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnap and rape. Miranda was not informed right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination when arrested. Miranda was also subjected to the physical stress of having had to stand for the whole day in the room where he was also interrogated. Miranda was also not informed of his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to seek legal counsel from a lawyer. After being identified by the victim, Miranda was made to sign a confession of the crime. The evidence in form of writing that was agreed to by Miranda was used against him in a court of law leading to a conviction of a period of 20- 30 years. Miranda’s lawyer appealed against the court case decision on the basis that his client was not mirandized (Goldstein & Goldstein, 20). The Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the previous court decision to use the confession evidence. The court cited that a confession admitting to a crime cannot be dismissed on any grounds. However, the court acknowledged that Miranda was not allowed the opportunity to access a lawyer (Prentzas, 93). The lawyer would have offered Miranda legal advice to remain silent and not give out information that would have been incriminating and led to his conviction. Miranda was absolutely denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Constitutional rights. The court conviction was overturned on the basis that the information that was used to prosecute Miranda was coerced and that he was not informed of his rights. If Miranda was aware of his right to provide evidence before a lawyer or remain silent, he would not have incriminated himself. This court decision made the judicial stand and intent clear on the important of reading individuals their rights before they are interrogated. If a suspect who is in custody decides to remain silent during the question, it is well within his/ her legal rights. If the individual asks for legal counsel to be present during the questioning, the individual is also within his/ her rights (Siegel, 29). The decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren led to the naming of the Miranda rights as they are so known till to date. The decision was considered to being controversial since it was considered that Miranda was guilty since he had been identified by the victim and he had agreed to sign the document that he had kidnapped and raped the victim in question. However, Miranda was arrested again on the basis of the victim’s testimony. However, the confession that had been signed by Miranda was not used against him in the new court case. Miranda was still sentenced to 20- 30 years in prison though he was released on parole after 6 years then murdered during a fight in a bar in the year 1976. Miranda rights are a requirement of the law when the law enforcement authorities are interrogating a suspect in custody. Suspects are said in to be in custody when they constrained in a manner that confines them from leaving the custodial area. However, the suspect can invoke his or her Miranda rights leading to admissibility of the evidence in the court of law. If the suspect disputes the fact that he waived his Miranda rights, the prosecution have the burden of proving that the suspect waived his constitutional right (Miranda rights). Silence can not be used as an evidence in a court of law thus it is advisable for the suspects to invoke the right to remain silent and request for a attorney before answering any questions from the police officers (Burgan, Shouba and Sluys 140). In one such case; Yarborough v. Alvarado, Alvarado’s conviction ruled out since the suspect that not informed of his Miranda rights by the police officers. The 2004 trial involved two teenagers; seventeen year old Michael Alvarado and Paul Soto. Paul Soto was assisted by his comrade Alvarado in the involvement of stealing a truck in Santa Fe California (Park, 200). Unfortunately, the robbery got foiled and turned into a murder when Soto murdered the driver of the truck. Since Alvarado was directly involved in the crime, he was also guilty of the truck driver’s death even if to a lesser extent. Therefore, he was to be charged for murder of the truck driver. However, after conducting thorough research Alvarado realized that his Miranda rights had not been read to him and therefore the confession that he had given while he was in police custody was not entirely legal. This was in violation of Alvarado’s Fifth Amendment rights in his constitution and therefore the conviction had the opportunity to be overturned (Park, 106). In a court case involving Miranda rights, the defendant; Van Chester Thompkins was mirandized after he was arrested and did not answer any of the questions that he was asked for a period of more than 2 hours. Thompkins had been arrest on suspicion that he had involved in a shooting that occurred in Southfield Michigan in January 2000. After being taken into police custody, he was asked several questions related to the shooting; which he didn’t answer. The police changed the strategy of question and used his faith in religion to answer yes to answer all questions that were asked by the police. Thompkins was convicted in court because he had been read his Miranda rights before he answered yes to all the questions asked (Goldtein & Goldstein, 56). Thompkins tried to appeal the first court decision on his conviction and have it overturned on the grounds that the answers were given on police questions asked were not voluntary. Thompkins was sentenced to life imprisonment because he answered questions asked without coercion. Thompkin’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was also rejected. The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the previous court decision that had been made on the case by pointing that he had been waived of his right to remain silent (Goldstein & Goldstein, 117). In another court case, Michael Vignera was arrested on the grounds that he had been a culprit in a robbery. Mr. Vignera was in police custody for a period of 8 hours, within which there was no proof provided that he had been mirandized. Mr. Vignera’s confession after the 8 hours was used in his prosecution. Earlier claims from police officers that arrested him stated that Mr. Vignera had actually confessed through word of mouth that he had actually committed a crime. In another incident, a defendant referred to as Carl Calvin Westover was placed in police custody on suspicion of having involved in tow robberies. After being questioned by the local police officers for a period of about fifteen hours, the suspect was moved to the custody of the federal Bureau of Investigation agents (Goldstein & Goldstein, 67). The agents made Mr. Vignera confess to the crimes and the evidence was used against him in a court of law. There was no evidence that Mr. Vignera had been briefed of his Miranda rights before he signed to the confession made under the FBI agents. In another Miranda rights issue, Mr. Roy Allen Stewart was placed in police custody for stealing. Stewart was arrested together with some of his family members even though there was no evidence to support his family members’ arrest. There were nine police interrogations, after which Mr. Stewart confessed to having involved in the robberies. No evidence was given to show that Mr. Stewart was mirandized before he gave his confession. The police officers that arrest an individual should also inform the individual of their Sixth Amendment that gives them the right to a lawyer who should/ can give them legal advice on their matter. Legal agencies around the country are usually required to take on some pro bono cases as part of their corporate social responsibility (Goldstein & Goldstein, 64). A court usually assigns a lawyer from the provided list of law firms that have agreed to do pro bono work. If an individual who is under police custody is not “mirandized’ and gives out information that incriminates him/ her, then the information can be used to further the investigation. However, the evidence cannot be admissible in court proceedings. According to the Miranda rights, an individual who feels that they might be arrested is within their legal rights when they refuse to answer to interrogation questions from police officers while in custody (Ruschman, 2005). However, there are exceptions to cases when an individual should diligently answer questions asked by a police officer or face contempt charges. Miranda rights awareness is importance especially for juveniles since it protects their rights to fair trial and prevents them from self-incrimination. Miranda rights also ensure that the police follow due process in the legally recommended manner. Some individuals such as minors might confess to a crime that they were not fully involved in and therefore incriminate themselves (Prentzas, 54). Therefore, police officers are required to ensure that the parents of the minor are present when interrogating the individual. In case the parents are not familiar of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, they should ensure that a lawyer is present so as to guide their child. Miranda rights also serve to ensure that individuals do not feel pressured or are not coerced to confess about crimes. The American constitution is supreme and it should protect the rights of all its nationals and other individuals in the country (Burgan, Shouba & Sluys, 72). The existence of Miranda rights also ensures that the police play their part in ensuring that suspects enjoy fair trial and conduct thorough investigations. Before being arrested, most individuals are not aware of their basic human rights. The police officers are bound by public duty to inform an individual of their legal rights which include the Miranda rights. Police officer and the judicial system are in place because of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, they should conduct their services in loyalty to the good will of the taxpayers. Exceptions to silence according to Miranda Rights Loitering If an individual is caught wandering about for no good reason, such as conducting of business, he should respond to all interrogative questions from the law authorities, or face possible arrest and jail time. The police officers can ask the suspects to identify themselves by providing legal documents like driving license (Burgan, Shouba & Sluys, 40). The police officers might confirm the details of the individual by calling back to the police station. By loitering, an individual is considered as disrupting the peace of other citizens. The law is in place to maintain peace and orderliness in place (Siegel, 187). Traffic offenses An individual who is stopped for possible traffic offenses should be ready to answer all the questions that are asked by a police officer. Questions that are asked usually revolve around the identity of the individual and their legal vehicle registration documents. It is important for an individual to answer the asked questions since they might revolve around stolen property or previous traffic offenses committed. Refusing to identify oneself in form legal identification is not taken lightly and the individual can be arrested (Goldstein & Goldstein, 78). Terry stop and frisk A police office has the legal authority to stop a motorist and search him/ and or their vehicle if they suspect the individual of a crime. A police officer is authorized by law to search a motorist’s vehicle on probable cause especially if he/she fears for his own or the safety of the public (Siegel, 158). The police officer might arrest such an individual if they have outstanding arrest warrants, or if they find illegal substances during the frisk exercise. Conclusion The main aim of Miranda rights is to protect the juvenile offenders from self-incrimination and to safeguard their constitution rights according to the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the constitution. The juvenile can request to provide interrogation evidence before a lawyer and unlawful methods such as threats should not be used by law enforcement officers to obtain evidence. The police should inform the juveniles of their right to remain silent and warn them against self-incrimination. The suspect must be under interrogation in police custody. Information obtained after the issue of Miranda warnings will be admissible in court proceedings. The police officers should notify the suspects in custody of their right to remain silent, right to give evidence in front of a counsel, the right to have an attorney appointed for them and their right to have the attorney paid if they cannot afford. The right to give evidence during custodial interrogation safeguards the suspect from self-incrimination thus protecting the Fifth Amendment of the constitution. Miranda rights leads to fair and impartial court proceedings thus protecting the suspects’ rights. Works cited: Burgan, M., Shouba, D. & Sluys, K.V. Miranda V. Arizona: The Rights of the Accused. Minneapolis. Capstone. 2006. Print. Goldstein, A.M. & Goldstein, N.E.S. Evaluating the capacity to waive Miranda Rights. Oxford. Oxford University press. 2010. Print. Park, J. Yaraborough v. Alvarado: At the Crossroads of the “Unreasonable Application” Provision of the Antiterrorism and effective Death Penalty Act of 996 and the Consideration of Juvenile Status in Custodial Determinations. Northwestern University. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol 95 (3) :871-904. 2005. Print. Prentzas, G.S. Miranda Rights: Protecting the Rights of the Accused. New York. Rosen Publishing Group. 2005. Print. Ruschman, P. Miranda Rights. New York. Facts on File. 2009. Print. Siegel, L. Introduction to Criminal justice. Ohio. Cengage Brain. 2009. Print. Read More