Backround and Development of Miranda Riights - Research Paper Example

Miranda Right Miranda Right Using ‘Miranda Warning’, also known as ‘Miranda Right’, the suspected criminal is given the warning before the interrogation in order to preserve the admissibility of the statements regarding the criminal proceeding1. Ruschmann (2007) in his book ‘Miranda Right’ defines ‘The warning is given to the suspected criminal before the interrogation process to tell the suspect that he or she has a right to remain silent, legally consul or anything that he or she says may be used in court against him’ (Ruschmann, 2007). As the law enforcement are required to protect the rights of the custodian from the direct questioning or functional equivalent of the fifth amendment right the custodian are given Miranda warning (Ruschmann, 2007). These warnings are a part of presentational criminal procedures to secure and protect the suspected criminals to violate the amendment (Sixth and Fifth Amendment). If the law enforcement officials do not give the Miranda Warning to the custodians, the officials may act or interrogate the person according to the gained knowledge and during the criminal trial the statement of the person shall not be considered (Ruschmann, 2007). The main objective of this document is to research Miranda Right; it aims to provide brief information about the history, background and development of Miranda Right. In addition, the document illustrates the rationales and justifications of Miranda Right. History During the Spanish Inquisition, severe practices by the law enforcement agencies were made to obtain the confessions of the suspect, such as, third degree torture, physical tortures and death. U.S. Supreme Court considered these practices and noted that these are unjust methods for the interrogation of the suspected criminal (Brezina, 2011). In the sixteenth century, the suspect was fist presented in front of the judge and questioned regarding incrimination statement that were either presented at the time of the trail or failure to answer to judge was considered as failure. Brown v. Walker (1896) noted that third degree torture was an irrational approach. In the nineteenth century, England removed the function of the judiciary in the investigation process under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1848. It was added that the law enforcement officials shall warn the suspect that they had the right to not to answer (Dershowitz & Frankfurter, 2011). This British Law for the ‘right to remain silent’ was incorporated in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The right was further elaborated in the Miranda v Arizona in Canada where the suspect can protect under the Charter Right Background Before Miranda warning any coercive and intimidating methods undertook by law enforcement agencies were once referred as undergoing ‘third degree’2. Today, Miranda Warning as a protection against the intimation and coercive acts of the law enforcement agencies (Ruschmann, 2007). In June 1996, for the first time the concept of Miranda Right was enshrined in the United States Law when the court of Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment right have been violated during the arrest and trails of Ernesto Arturo Miranda3. He was charged for the armed robbery and rape of mentally handicapped young women (Ruschmann, 2007). During the course, Supreme Court did not directly stated his rights using specific words, but the Court delivered set guidelines that were followed as ‘The person in custody must be prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he/she has to right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court… he has the right to consult the attorney’ (U.S Supreme Court, 2000) as a result to his the English language developed the concept of verb Mirandize, that means the law enforcement official should read Miranda Warning to the suspected when arrested (Dershowitz & Frankfurter, 2011). Due to the intimidate police interrogation methods the convictions were overturned, as after the retrial of the case Miranda was again found convicted (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). As the result of Escobedo v. Illinois in 1964 provided that the suspects shall be given right to counseled about the police question (Ruschmann, 2007). In addition, he or she has the right to be consult any legal advisor or attorney before being questioned by the policemen for the purpose if his answer might be used against the suspected trail (Schultz, 2009). By the end of 1968, the wording used for Miranda Warning was finalized which was then given before “the California Deputy attorney General Doris Maier and District attorney ‘Harold Berliner’” (Ruschmann, 2007). Before Miranda Warning the confession by the suspected criminals were made on the trails. This has created a difficult situation for the police as they were faced with the evidence at the time of trails because of the unconscious minds of the criminals due to circumstantial duress in provide the confession of the conviction (Brezina, 2011). On June 2010, when Berghusis v. Thompkins case was decided by the United States Supreme Court declared that the suspect criminals who have been read Miranda Right should state during or before the interrogation that either they wish to remain silent and not to speak the police for protection against the self-incrimination (Dershowitz & Frankfurter, 2011). If the suspect speaks about the incident before Miranda Right is spoke before or during the interrogation stating that either they remain to be silent to protect their right against the self-incrimination what ever they speak can be used by the police against them (Ruschmann, 2007). This opinion was firstly written by M. Kennedy followed by Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and the Chief Justice Robert (Ruschmann, 2007). It was clearly defined that the defendant shall speak his intentions to either speak or remain silent during the interrogation (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). The Development of Miranda Right The concept behind Miranda is to establish clear and rigid guidelines to protect the suspect from the coercive actions of the law enforcement officials during the custodial interrogation (Ruschmann, 2007). Before 1966, Interrogation law of governed by Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was followed, it stated that the ‘totality circumstance approach’ was implemented to condemn police misconduct overbore the will of the suspect, during such interrogation the police used most egregious behaviors, such as, physical abuse, torture to make the suspect to make the statement (Ruschmann, 2007). It also includes several behaviors that were not physically abusive, but were operated to coerce for the suspect to make the statement (Ruschmann, 2007). It was believed that the Police officers were becoming more sophisticated during the interrogation therefore the Court decided to emphasize on the Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination more than the Due Process Approach4 (Ruschmann, 2007). The four cases that were assessed under Miranda the Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination were used to create pressure on the suspect. Therefore, it was stated that to protect the suspect and opportunity to exercise privileges the court decided to develop a warning that could allow the suspect to remain silent and exercise his privileges of Fifth Amendment (Schultz, 2009). Therefore, the court developed the warning stating that the suspect must be warned or told before that ‘he has the right to remain silent or anything he says may be used against him in court, he has a right to consult a legal attorney, an attorney shall be present during the question and the attorney will be appointed if he is not able to do so (U.S Supreme Court, 2000).’ This warning must be read to the suspect though he is aware of his rights because the warning eases the pressure overcoming to the suspect during the interrogation atmosphere. Once the suspect is read the warning, the individual has the choice to remain silent which puts the interrogation on hold and if the suspects state that he wants the attorney, till the time attorney is not presented the interrogation shall be cease (Ruschmann, 2007). Incase if the interrogation is continued, the government is heavily burden because the defendant knowingly waived his privileges against self-incrimination to remain silent or appoint counsel (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). It remained one of the major questions for the court to sort out the meaning of ‘custody’ and ‘interrogation’ to determine whether the prerequisites before the warning are required (U.S Supreme Court, 2000)5. Latterly, the other consequences were to resolve that either the right of being silent or the right to counsel was prior (Schultz, 2009). After few years, the Supreme Court declared that the questioning should be carried on, though the suspect asserts his right to remain silent (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). On the other hand, Miranda Right states that once the individual indicates to remain silent any further questioning shall not be provisioned and the interrogation shall be ceased. This developed other issues such as if the suspect always chose to remain silent for how long the questioning must be ceased? It shall be noted that in the case of Michigan v. Mosley the court rejected the notion that the suspect invoked his right to remain silent from the interrogation (Dershowitz & Frankfurter, 2011). During the case of Mosley it was evident that Fifth Amendment rights were being violated when the government re-questioned him though he invoked his right to remain silent (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). Therefore in the Mosley case the court stated that the determination should be made under the circumstance (Brezina, 2011). Hence, the court honored suspect’s right to cut of the questioning, though the interrogation was resumed. In the Edward case, when the defendant was arrested for attempting robbery, burglary and first-degree crime he was read the Miranda Right by the law enforcement officials. He then waived his right to speak, when he was told about the crimes that were suspected on him. During the interrogation, the suspect tried to convince the official to make a deal, when the official refused to make the deal, the defendant asked for the attorney to make the deal. He was taken to jail and in the morning two investigating officials were sent to the jail to speak Edward. Though he refused to meet the official but he was told that he was suppose to, he was again read the right and he choose to speak6. During the interrogation the suspect confessed that he committed the crime. On the other hand, Edward argued that his Miranda Right was violated as he asked for the counsel. In the early 1980’s, the Supreme Court established a statement stating that he invoked for the right to counsel is entirely different from the right to remain silent. In 1994, the Supreme Court considers that the suspect that has asked for the attorney actually seeks to invoke his right to counsel under Miranda. Before this the lower courts followed three approaches based on whether the suspect makes any request it was considered to be the request for counsel, ambiguous and the interrogation were directed to be ceased immediately (Dershowitz & Frankfurter, 2011). The opinion was that any ambiguous statement of the suspects was invocated as a right to counsel. On the contrary, the other courts were ambiguous of the suspect, and ceased the interrogation at the moment, whereas some of the courts followed that the neutral and if the suspect indicates ambiguity then the police quested to clarify that either the suspect wants or does not want the presence of attorney at the interrogation. In all the three cases of ambiguous indication, the interrogations and questioning were ceased. If the suspect indicates a willingness to speak without the presence of attorney, the questioning shall be proceeding. After thirteen years, the Supreme Court decided on Miranda Right, when the case of Davis was presented that addressed the major question that was triggered in the protection of forth amendment in the Miranda and Edward case. Davis was a U.S Navy who was arrested for killing fellow office in a pool game (Brezina, 2011). After being read Miranda Right, he waived his right to speak, after more than an hour, he invokes for his right to counsel. After a break Davis was again read Miranda Right and the questioning resumed (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). Davis again said, ‘I think I want a lawyer before I say anything else’ and at the same time the interrogation was ceased. After this the Supreme Court granted a certiorari, guideline that allowed the law enforcement officers to determine how to respond when the suspect indicates ambiguous request (Ruschmann, 2007). After this the Justice O’Connor rejected the idea of the lower courts to consider ambiguous or not constitutes as a right to counsel (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). The outcomes of the case found that the ‘stop-and-clarify approach’ was considered to be a better approach. Hence, the court suggested that the good policemen practice should be to clarify the answer when the suspect indicates ambiguous or request for attorney (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). Rationale and Justification of Miranda Right The rationales of Miranda Right are to protect and secure the custodian or the suspect from the inherently compelling pressure and to reduce the pressure of the ‘police dominant atmosphere’ of the interrogation trails (Dershowitz & Frankfurter, 2011). The right to remain silent allows the custodian to think and overcome the pressure of the policemen (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). The United States Supreme Court creates two primary measures to protect the defendant under the Fifth Amendment; it clearly states that the custodian has either the right to remain silent or right to counsel (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). When the interrogation is beginning the policemen reads Miranda right to the defendant to know his perception regarding the case (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). The right to silence can be relinquishing any time according to the desire, intelligence and voluntary wavier of the defendant (Ruschmann, 2007). Under the Fifth Amendment the Untied States Supreme Court provides protection of self-incrimination; the law enforcement official are required to provide certain warning and obtain the wavier before proceeding to the interrogation (Schultz, 2009). This privileges the custodian to invoke his right prior than the interrogation (Dershowitz & Frankfurter, 2011). In addition, Miranda Right privileges defendant with the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment, the interrogation is ceased at the same time or the interrogation is resumed when the court provide the attorney or presence of attorney at the time of interrogation (Dershowitz & Frankfurter, 2011). This allows the defendant to take legal advices and counseling for the interrogation from the pressure (U.S Supreme Court, 2000). Furthermore, there are certain defendants that are able to afford an attorney, whereas there are some who are not able to afford an attorney. The Untied States Supreme Court is compelled to provide the attorney to the custodian who is not able to afford the attorney for counseling (Brezina, 2011). References List Brezina, C. (2011). The Fifth Amendment: Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, and Due Process of Law. New York: The Rosen Publising Group. Dershowitz, A. M., & Frankfurter, F. (2011). Is There a Right to Remain Silent? : Coercive Interrogation and the Fifth Amendment After 9/11: Coercive Interrogation and the Fifth Amendment After 9/11. New York: Oxford University Press. Schultz, D. A. (2009). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Washington DC: Infobase Publishing. Ruschmann, P. (2007). Miranda Rights. New York: Infobase Publishing. U.S Supreme Court. (2000). US Supreme Court Decisions - Miranda V. Arizona (Miranda Rights). Washington DC: Special Edition Books. Read More