Legally Observing Individual Rights - Assignment Example

Legally Observing Individual Rights As citizens in the United s, that are certain freedoms for which each individual are guaranteed under the stated laws of the land. One of those freedoms so entitled to is that of being told, when approached by those in law enforcement with the intent of placing into custody, the rights we have to such things as to remain silent or also our right to legal representation. Just one of the definitions of rights according to law.com is as follows, "plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)," (Law.com, p.1). One of those such rights would be the Miranda rights. In defining them, "Also known as the Miranda Rule or Miranda Warning, when you are arrested in the U.S.A., police officers must warn you that you have the right to remain silent, that anything you say could be used against you in a court of law, that you have a right to contact a lawyer and that if you cannot afford a lawyer, that one will be provided before any questioning if so desired," Adding that, "Failure to issue the Miranda warning renders evidence so obtained to not be admissible in the court. The warning became a national requirement when ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona and that is how it got the name," (LawInfo.com, p.1). In the respect of this definition, the case involving Jane Smith would fall into direct violation in regards to the merits and meaning behind Miranda Rights. As the rights clearly state, a person has to be given the opportunity to posses legal counsel at the time of arrest and to have on one present during legal questioning. Another pertinent issue towards the legality of the case against a person in Jane Smith's position is the lack of parental consent towards the interrogation of their child who would have been a minor at the time. As common law states, when someone is a minor, they are to be approached with the knowledge and presence of their parents to consent to such approach. As the alleged perpetrator of the crime in question was a minor at the time, they would still be protected by the laws for interrogating minors despite whether or not the deciding authority wishes to charge the alleged as an adult. As there had been no written transferring of guardianship, the Uncle of Jane Smith would have no legal authority in regards to determining how, or even if his niece was to be questioned by the police. With the creation of laws, there is often times events and people that come as a way of facilitating such laws needing to be in place. In the case of the events leading up to case that which lead to the creation of the Miranda Rights law; 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 the 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 may be used against me," and that he had knowingly waived those rights (Miranda v. Arizona, p.1). Such case practices that would later become illegal with the creation of the Miranda rights at the conclusion of the trial of Ernesto Miranda. Years since, the issue of delivering Miranda rights to person's in custody has become a central issue to the implementation of the American Judicial system in the way in which it was intended. For reasons of prosecuting crimes, the information gathered from alleged perpetrators is placed under great scrutiny as it comes to the methods for which they were gathered in the first place. Such attention paid in that, if collected even with the slightest bit of a hint that something had been done incorrectly, the overall evidence and statements gathered can be thrown out from a court of law after being deemed inadmissible due to the nature in which that information was formed together for the purpose of lawful investigation. Without the declaration of rights being given to those in custody for questioning, it can be quite difficult for such information to be provided in a manner that ensures no laws were broken and that the truth in fact has been found in the case. In an article by The Seattle Times over the issue of the validity of issuing Miranda rights in any investigation. In the news piece reporter Stephen Henderson writes of two particular cases that go into the core of the initial purpose of having Miranda rights. Stephen Henderson, a writer for The Seattle Times, provides examples of two of the cases at issue in his piece dated December 10, 2003. The first being; In yesterday's first case, a Colorado man said a gun he told police they'd find in his bedroom shouldn't be admitted as evidence against him because he interrupted police while they were reading his rights," With the second case being, "Patrice Seibert, of Missouri, said the police shouldn't be able to use her taped confession because they interrogated her for nearly an hour before reading her rights. The officer said he conducted the two-staged interrogation- one unwarned and one warned- because trainers taught him to do it that way," (Henderson, 12/10/03). The behavior of the officers in regards to the case of Jane Smith made decisions in regards to procedure in their investigation that would go strongly against the intent of Miranda rights as they are laid out in national law. Subsequently to the Miranda decision, policy decisions would continue to form. "Two years after the Miranda Decision (1968), the Omnibus Safe Streets and Crime Control Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson," Going on to say that, "It began as a way to protect potential victims of the Miranda Decision, to protect the "non-represented" before the court, because many saw it as being detrimental to the interrogatory process," (Howard, p.1). Reading further, the source details the perceived fear or concern amongst some that those who wished to not abide by the laws of the land would use such a right to their advantage and limit to a certain degree how the cases were able to be handled by those who were in charge to handle them. This in itself, would be the foundation argument for those who wish to come out against or question the relevancy for having the Miranda rights policy in place. In the end, there are laws to be enforced in the nation not just to maintain civil order, but also to protect those who may have wrongly been accused of the crimes in the first place. As would be the case for Jane Smith, withholding the declaration of rights is a clear violation and any such information gathered is to be deemed invalid. Works Cited Henderson, Stephen. "Supreme Court torn over cases involving Miranda rights." The Seattle Times: Nation & World. Published: 10 December 2003. URL: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001811673_scotus10.html Howard, Sheila C. "Miranda Rights-- Do We Really Know Them" Staff writer for Justice Denied. URL:http://www.justicedenied.org/miranda.htm Infoplease.com. Miranda v. Arizona. (1966) URL: http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar23.html Law.com Law Dictionary. "rights." URL: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.aspselected=1858&bold= %7C%7C%7C%7C LawInfo.com. "What Are The Miranda Rights" URL: http://resources.lawinfo.com /en/Legal-FAQs/Criminal-Law/Federal/what-are-the-miranda-rights-.html Read More