Miranda v Arizona

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and raping a young woman near Phoenix, Arizona. He was questioned at the police station for two hours and confessed. During this time, there was no indication of any misconduct by police and Miranda never requested for an attorney. Following his confession, he was appointed an attorney, paid for by the government, because he was poor, he was found guilty and sent to jail for twenty to thirty years. Along with his confession, there was evidence against him which aided in his conviction. However, he was able to acquire new attorneys with defended him using a different approach. His attorneys argued that the “entire interrogation process is so inherently coercive that any individual will eventually break down”(Miranda v. Arizona, 532) and advocated for the Court to add protections to protect one’s right against self-incrimination.

Reading this case reminds me of a scene in the movie 21 Jump Street, which I attached below. The main characters were beginning their careers as police officers and caught a drug criminal; however, they forgot to read the convict accused his miranda rights and had to release him. Although it is a fictional and comedic storyline, the scene showed the importance of these rights. If an officer forgot to state the miranda rights, all of the hard work they put in to enforcing the law would essentially be for nothing.

In this case, there was, luckily, enough evidence to convict Miranda, even without his confession. It would be extremely frustrating if he was set free, even though he was obviously guilty. As a country which highly values individual’s rights, I believe the miranda rights are extremely important to serve as a reminder; especially because those arrested tend to be less educated in the justice system. However, I think it seems extreme to have a confession or arrest completely thrown out because the criminal, who already has less rights being arrested, was not given this courtesy. In emergencies, one’s rights are not required to be reminded to them, so it’s interesting how vital it is that these are when being arrested.

6 Responses to "Miranda v Arizona"

Justin Barlow says:

October 30, 2016 at 8:35 pm

I very much agree with what you put forth in your post. Even if there is a strong belief that someone is guilty, there are personal liberties guaranteed by the constitution that should not be breached despite the officer’s sense of the situation. Forcing people to testify against themselves yields the police the ability to bully citizens into admitting whatever they so chose. During the beatings that occurred in New York officers tried to forcibly incriminate a citizen using physical force, which should not be allowed under any circumstance. If a crime has actually been committed by the citizen, it can be inferred that evidence can be gathered legally, and should not be forced out of the supposed criminal.

I also do agree that police can effectively coerce unknowing citizens using legal language the defendant may not fully understand. In many cases, defendants from lower class may find themselves facing intense police interrogation simply because they live in high crime areas, and without background knowledge could easily be coerced into incriminating themselves. Without money for a proficient lawyer, many people could be accused of crimes they didn’t commit. Essentially, if it weren’t for the reading of the Miranda rights, and the subsequent exposure that it has gained from movies and television the police would be able to force people into incriminating themselves.
Alexandra Serek says:

October 31, 2016 at 2:59 pm

This case is a landmark decision that has had major effects on the interrogating of suspected criminals. In my opinion, these effects are for the most part positive. I agree with Abby’s statement that “As a country which highly values individual’s rights, I believe the miranda rights are extremely important to serve as a reminder.” While reading the majority opinion and being exposed to what really happens during police interrogations, it is understandable that the Miranda Rights should and need to be stated. The entire process the police go through is as Chief Justice Warren states, “Designed to put the subject in a psychological state where his story is but an elaboration of what the police purport to know already – that he is guilty.” (Miranda v. Arizona 534). While under these conditions such as an unfamiliar space, a policeman confidence of guilt, and the outright blaming of guilt, suspects are psychologically taxed and tricked. Therefore these Miranda rights will minimize this trickery played by the police and allow for a more fair process.
I would like to bring up a specific point about the opinion. The constitutional issue decided on was “the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” (Miranda v. Arizona 533). This statements suggests that when a person is not technically in custody or deprived of their freedom then they can be subject to the use of their own statements. I feel as though there will be many cases following this opinion about the definition of “custody” and what constitutes someone being deprived of their freedom. What do you think this definition is? The court’s wording of the majority opinion implies in my opinion that there are instances still in which people can incriminate themselves.
Lastly, I just wanted to show a quick movie clip, like Abby did, from Shrek 2 about the Miranda rights! It does not show the application of Miranda rights but it’s just for laughs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBttNOUtZaU
Giulia Frias says:

October 31, 2016 at 4:02 pm

There is a very fine line between coercing a suspect to confess and employing proper interrogating techniques. While there was enough evidence to convict Ernesto Miranda without his confession, police need to respect that every individual, regardless of their mental state, or the crimes they allegedly committed, is guaranteed basic human rights, in this case, protection against self incrimination. I thought it was interesting that in his Opinion of the Court, Justice Warren cities the shift in police coercion through physical force to psychological force. While less overt, psychological force merits the same level of consideration. I agree with Abby’s statement in which she states, “In a country which highly values individual’s rights, I believe the miranda rights are extremely important to serve as a reminder; especially because those arrested tend to be less educated in the justice system”. Some criminals may not be aware of their rights and police sometimes take advantage of this face to falsely incriminate them.
Kevin Kennedy says:

October 31, 2016 at 4:16 pm

Abby, I agree with you that the thought of someone being set free because their Miranda rights were not read to them is frustrating. On the other hand, I do believe that this is an important part of the judicial system. Similar to the good faith exception, I think that there needs to be systems in place to ensure that every defendant, whether innocent or guilty, is treated fairly. Part of this fairness comes from ensuring that any evidence obtained illegally, including confessions or any other words the defendant said, cannot be used at trial. Additionally, you mention that if officers do not remember to read the Miranda rights, then all their hard work could go away. While I think that this is true, I feel that this is an incentive to ensure that the Miranda rights are read. Also, I feel that the Miranda rights are not difficult to remember. Anyone who has seen any crime based television show could probably recite at least half of the warning, if not more. Therefore, even though some people, such as Justice White in his dissenting opinion, believe that the Miranda rights may impede law enforcement, I believe that in the end they ensure a fair system for everyone, even if this means someone who is guilty could become free.
Staton Whaley says:

October 31, 2016 at 4:31 pm

I agree with all of your points here. I think you displayed the case facts here in a way that shows the real context of the situation, and then mention that Miranda was found guilty due to other evidence. It highlights that this case was taken on to be a landmark case, and also stood for three cases of equal stature. The 21 Jump Street actually really works in your response. Although done ironically, it shows how easy it is, and should be to police officers, to execute the task of reading out the “Miranda rights.” I agree with your assessment that it only reflects poorly upon the officer’s own work when these rights aren’t read out. This is a deterrent, just like we talked about in the Fourth Amendment cases. I also think it should stand for a larger group of uneducated, incarcerated Americans, many of whom may relate to Ernesto Miranda. The making of these rights being a standard is very protective of those under arrest, which is essential in ensuring that we uphold the principal that one is innocent until proven guilty. To treat everyone equally would mean to ensure that every citizen know their rights, and that is exactly what this landmark case puts in place.
Olivia Justis says:

November 13, 2016 at 11:05 am

I think it is interesting that you included that scene from 21 Jump Street… It is easy for us to laugh and poke fun at the shortcomings of fictional police officers (especially when played by Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill) but it is inappropriate and unprofessional of a real-life police officer to neglect to read an individual their rights when they are in custody. Under the Fifth Amendment, individuals are protected against self-incrimination and that right was violated when the officers brought Miranda into the police station and questioned him without informing him of his rights. While the Court did not find the interrogation strategies of the officers to be coercive, I would argue that detaining and questioning an individual without reading them their rights could be considered coercive for several reasons. The average citizen does not know what the Fifth Amendment reads let alone what rights they are guaranteed under that text. By placing Ernesto Miranda in custody (a position that makes people feel vulnerable) and interrogating him, the officers encouraged him to make self-incriminating statements without the knowledge that he possessed the choice to remain silent or request the advice of an attorney. Although the Court did not hold that the interrogation techniques could be qualified as coercive, they did hold what I agree to be the most pressing issue of this case – that the process in which Miranda was detained and questioned without reading his rights was a failure by the police officers to grant Miranda free will during the interrogation.

Comments are closed.