Miranda v. Arizona

The case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was very crucial to shaping the future of police investigation. It wasn’t until this case that police had to inform their suspect of their rights. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix, Arizona. The charges of the arrest were kidnapping and rape. The police were questioning him non-stop for two hours until he finally confessed. During the trial, Miranda claimed his confession was invalid. The reason for this was because the police never informed him of his right to an attorney or his right to avoid self-incrimination. In the end, the Court ruled in favor of Miranda saying that police must inform criminal suspects of their legal rights at the time of arrest and may not interrogate suspects who invoke their rights.

Chief Justice Earl Warren said that he based his argument on the Fifth Amendment. For those who don’t know it, it guarantees that an accused person cannot be forced “to be a witness against himself” or herself. Warren said that because the police interrogations are “inherently intimidating,” it doesn’t allow the defendant’s statements to be the product of free choice.

There are many reasons why Miranda v. Arizona is important, but to Chief Justice Earl Warren, it allowed him to have a strong opinion about the case. As a result the case, police have detailed instructions of what to say during the arrest of a suspect. The reason of this is to prevent another case similar to Miranda v. Arizona.

The case wasn’t an easy decision for the rest of the world. Many critics claimed that this ruling would cause more crime due to the fact that it is harder to convict the suspects. Soon afterwards, police officers placed the rights of the suspect on a card, which became known as the Miranda warning. The Miranda warning is still used today and is often portrayed on television police, law, and criminal shows.

Brett

Miranda Vs. Arizona

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.