In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Arizona for the count of rape. The police then took him down to the police station and started interrogating him. Miranda, not informed of his rights, eventually signed a written confession of kidnapping and rape. The confession was typed up and said that the confession was voluntary and with "full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement may be used against me." The prosecution used the confession as evidence against Miranda and later on, Miranda was convicted on all counts of kidnapping and rape.
Eventually, Miranda appealed his case to Supreme Court. Based on testimonies given, it was evident that Miranda was never been told of his rights. In 1966, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda in Miranda vs. Arizona. The ruling said that all suspect must be read their rights before interrogation or questioning. The legal reasoning behind the ruling was based on the Fifth Amendment, which states that "no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." The ruling also was made to ensure that innocent people are not punished and that federal, state, or local authorities will not harass people for political reasons. There was a split reaction from the general public. The liberals supported the decision, saying that it placed necessary limits on police power and protected rights; the conservatives, on the other hand, thought that the ruling benefitted the criminal suspect and limited the power of the police to investigate crimes. In the end, Miranda was retried and convicted based on other evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment