Miranda v. Arizona – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

Anyone who has seen Spike Networks “Cops”, “21 Jump Street”, or really any other TV show that has remotely to do with law enforcement can probably recite at lease part of the Miranda rights. However many people, I for one, knew almost nothing about where these rights came from. In 1966 a truck driver named Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the alleged kidnapping and rape of a young woman outside of Phoenix, Arizona. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda confessed. There was no police misconduct but Mirandas attorneys argued that police interrogation would break down any suspect and that the court should do more to protect individuals from self-incrimination. The legal question to the supreme court is does the fifth amendment protect against self incrimination also protect against police interrogation?

The court decided that a suspect does have these protections from self incrimination extending further to say that the suspect must be aware of their right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Also the right to an attorney, and that if the suspect can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided for the suspect.

The dissenting opinion argued that this decision made it harder for police to do their job. I disagree with this. If a suspect is guilty, they are guilty, and the evidence should be enough to be able to prosecute them while still upholding their fifth amendment rights. The Miranda v. Arizona case as an example. The police interrogation was found to be unconstitutional, however the evidence that was being held against Miranda was enough to put him away for the crime he committed. It should be noted that a suspect is only read his miranda rights after they’ve been arrested and previous to be asked any questions by officers. If no questions are ever asked, the rights don’t have to be read.

Sydney Gardner says:

October 31, 2016 at 6:48 pm

I found the background story of the Miranda Rights to be very interesting. I liked how in the majority opinion, written by Justice Warren he recognizes that coercion can be a mental and physical thing. This is important to recognize because you can see when a physical crime is being committed, but it isn’t as easy to tell when something psychological is going on.
The Court was obviously very divided on this decision because the breakdown was 5-4, reversing the decision of the lower court. I found the dissenting opinion to be the most interesting part of the Miranda case, because as you pointed out Justice White, along with others argue that having miranda rights will make it more difficult for guilty convictions. I disagree with this opinion, because the accused also have rights. As Justice Warren mentioned, if anyone was held in an interrogation for a long period of time they would eventually crack or incriminate themselves. The miranda rights protects against this and allows the accused to stay silent until an attorney is present.

Emily Parker says:

October 31, 2016 at 9:59 pm

I agree that police interrogation shouldn’t be the most integral part of the conviction of a suspect. Your point that the evidence should play more of a role in that decision particularly stuck with me because I feel as though that is one of the most important ideas established in the decision of Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda rights shift the burden of responsibility more towards the evidence of the crime that was committed then information obtained in other manners, thus protecting the right of the people to be innocent until proven guilty. I agree that if anything it makes the job of the police easier and more defined. By setting these guidelines it helps the police establish hard rules about how to properly treat those accused of committing a crime. Also this helps the general populous maintain their rights because even if they many not know them at the time of arrest they are required to be informed of them. I think that is an important protected offered to people.

Destiny Pryor says:

November 11, 2016 at 10:57 am

I would also like to agree that so much importance shouldn’t be placed on police interrogation. The police have the right to lie and mislead suspects without any repercussions. They may even decide to present false information. Unlike police, evidence from a crime can not lie. The evidence should speak for itself. The interrogation should be complimentary to blatant evidence. The evidence against Miranda should have been enough to allow a persecution to take place, instead of being dismissed due to his rights not being presented. Whether he knew his rights, he still was still accused of committing a horrible crime. These rights should be told to the suspect, but if not, other measures should be taken to charge a suspect who has admitted or has been found guilty on other terms.