Explore BrainMass
Share

Miranda Rights

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Television depicts several law enforcement programs in which criminals sometimes admit or confess to crimes without being read their rights. Because of this, some cases may be thrown out even though the evidence may point to the accused.

Please read Miranda v. Arizona and do some research to see how well it has held up since it was first decided. Has Miranda been expanded or cut back? Currently, Miranda warnings are only given to suspects in custody (not free to leave) who are being interrogated. Should All suspects be given Miranda warnings whenever police talk with them, even if the person is free to leave?

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 16, 2018, 7:21 pm ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/law/criminal-law-and-justice/miranda-rights-113513

Solution Preview

Please see response attached, which is also presented below. I also attached the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

Response:

Interesting case! Lets take a closer look through discussion and example.

1. Television depicts several law enforcement programs in which criminals sometimes admit or confess to crimes without being read their rights. Because of this, some cases may be thrown out even though the evidence may point to the accused. Please read Miranda v. Arizona and do some research to see how well it has held up since it was first decided.

I am wondering is you have read the case of Miranda v. Arizona yet. If not, please do that now, as it is an important part of your research. It is attached for convenience. Also see a diagram depiction of the decisions of the case at http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/courtsystem.html.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."
-Chief Justice Earl Warren,
speaking for the majority

Basically, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) has held up fairly well since it was first decided, with a few exceptions. For example, following the Miranda decision, the nation's police departments were required to inform arrested persons of their rights under the ruling, termed a Miranda warning. However, the Miranda decision was widely criticized when it came down, as many felt it was unfair to inform suspected criminals of their rights, as outlined in the decision. Richard M. Nixon and other conservatives denounced Miranda for undermining the efficiency of the police, and argued the ruling would contribute to an increase in crime. Nixon, upon becoming President, promised to appoint judges who would be "strict constructionists" and who would exercise judicial restraint. Many supporters of law enforcement were angered by the decision's negative view of police officers. The federal Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 purported to overrule Miranda for federal criminal cases and restore the "totality of the circumstances" test that had prevailed previous to Miranda. This validity of this provision of the law, which is still codified at 18 U.S. Code 3501, was not ruled on for another 30 years because the Justice Department never attempted to rely on it to support the introduction of a confession into evidence at any criminal trial. Miranda was undermined by several subsequent decisions which seemed to grant several exceptions to the "Miranda warnings", undermining its claim to be a necessary corollary of the Fifth Amendment. ...

Solution Summary

This solution discusses if the Miranda Rights have been expanded or cut back. Since Miranda warnings are only given to suspects in custody (not free to leave) who are being interrogated, it examines if all suspects should instead be given Miranda warnings whenever police talk with them, even if the person is free to leave. Examples are provided, as well as links and references.

$2.19
Similar Posting

Miranda warnings ensure that individuals detained or questioned by police are aware of their rights.

Miranda warnings ensure that individuals detained or questioned by police are aware of their rights. These warnings generally read, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Read the scenario below and answer the following questions in words.

On August 24, 2005, Officer Larry Watson responded to a burglary call on Sunnyside Street in northern Phoenix, around 2:00 a.m. As the officer pulled up to the indicated location, he witnessed a man, dressed in dark clothes, running down the driveway into the street.

Officer Watson called for backup, initially following the suspect in his patrol car, and eventually abandoning the police cruiser to continue on foot. Approximately 100 yards into the chase, the man scaled a chain-link fence and landed on the other side. The officer followed suit.

The chase was now at a nearby high school. Running through the quad area, the man flung his right arm away from his body, what Officer Watson would later describe as "a throwing motion." A clink sound echoed a few yards away from the chase, followed by the sound of bouncing metal.

Officer Watson tracked the man down, preventing his escape. As the officer walked the defendant back to his cruiser, he asked if he had thrown a weapon. The suspect indicated he had thrown a knife. Walking back to the patrol car, Watson found the knife in question and some jewelry, which the victim would later identify as stolen. The officer handcuffed the suspect and placed him under arrest.

As they continued their walk back to the cruiser, the officer questioned the suspect about his possession of the jewelry and the recent burglary. The suspect remained silent.

Officer Watson then put the suspect in the back of his cruiser and drove to the stationhouse for further interrogation. There the suspect confessed to the burglary under questioning.

o When should the Miranda warnings be given and why?
o How might this situation not require Miranda warnings?
o Explain your reasoning.
o Reference a court case for each section to support your findings.

Any help will be much appreciated. Thank you.

View Full Posting Details