The Miranda Warnings - Essay Example

This is what happened in the Ernesto Miranda in 1963 when he was accused of abducting and raping a young girl. He wasn't made cognizant of his rights and therefore confessed to his crime. In 1966, however, the Supreme Court disregarded his confessions as evidence against him as he wasn't aware of his rights to remain silent and his right to an attorney. Since then Miranda warnings have been given out to anyone who is suspected of a crime so that he later not argue of being unaware of his rights.

(" The Miranda Warning")However, there are certain conditions or situations when Miranda warnings apply and where they don't.Other than in cases of "custodial interrogation" as in Miranda case, the court has put down situations where Miranda warnings need to be given. In 1977 during Oregon vs. Mathiason case, the court put forward other situations where the people need to Mirandized. The court said: "Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime.

"(Franklin, 1998)This means that Miranda warnings need to be given before any "interview", rather than an interrogation, with anyone who is suspected of a crime, which includes those who are not yet arrested. It is, thus, applicable in pre-arrest situations too. However, the person needs to be in a "coercive" situation.However, it is important to note that Miranda warnings are only applicable when the person being questioned is found suspected in some way. Any other questioning, even taking place at a police station, will not be preceded by Miranda warnings if the person being questioned is not suspected of any crime.

The Stansbury vs. California has best illustrated this special situation. In 1994, Stansbury was summoned to the station for casual questioning about the abduction, molestation, and murder of a young girl. At the time he was called, he was not a suspect and therefore was not given Miranda warnings. Only after, he mentioned about his car that police officers' suspicions were aroused as a witness has also mentioned the same car. Then, the officers informed him of his rights through Miranda warnings.

This clearly shows when Miranda warnings are applicable and when they are not. The following statements of the court have further clarified them: "We held in Miranda that a person questioned by law enforcement officers after being "taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way" must first "be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.

" Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 444 (1966).( Carl,1998)But after viewing Beckwith v. the United States, 1976, one can say that court even permits non-Mirandizing of suspects who weren't in custody. But again in regular law violations cases, the culprits may be in custody and still not Mirandised such as breaking speed limits at high ways, etc.(" Beckwith v. the United States")In conclusion, we can say that applications of Miranda warnings might appear too confusing at first glance, but with little reading of Miranda cases, we can get a very clear idea of situations where it is important to inform people of rights to remain silent and rights to an attorney and where it is not.