Introduction
The Miranda case is based on violating the American people’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. After Miranda was arrested in his residential area, he underwent a very long interrogation by the police, followed by a confession written by him and a witness said to have recognized him as the attacker (Soltero 64). However, he had not been informed about the Fifth Amendment, which could give him the right to have an attorney and remain silent. As a result, the confession by the defendant was used as evidence at trial. The court held that in cases where questions arise concerning the incompetence of the client’s confession, such an issue is always under the control of the fifth amendment that no individual is compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves (Soltero 65). On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona maintained that no constitutional rights of the accused had been violated, and thus the judgment was reversed. Therefore, this essay discusses the case of Miranda vs. Arizona on whether the Supreme Court made the right decision in reversing the judgment.
Opinion about Miranda V. Arizona Case
No. Although there was an infringement of the rights of the accused, the judgment provided the lawbreakers with an opportunity to evade prosecution unfairly. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Court of Appeal ruling was influenced by the culture, media, and authoritative standing (“Miranda v. Arizona“). According to Justice Warren’s majority opinion, the majority of suspects consider the interrogations by the police to be very frightening (“Miranda v. Arizona“). It triggers their Fifth right of an amendment against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless those rights are waived (“Miranda v. Arizona“). In addition, the ruling stressed the need for the law enforcement agency to observe those rights if a suspect exercises them. It is also evident that the media broadcasted different police shows intending to ignore Miranda rights, considering them as a method of entertainment. Since most people overlooked Miranda rights at the time of their introduction, culture has also contributed to them not being observed, something the court upheld in this case.
The court claims that questioning individuals suspected to have committed a crime when they are not provided enough protection involves inherently compelling pressures that demoralize the person’s will to deny interrogations and speak freely. Thus, accused clients ought to be protected prior to any questioning. In addition, the person ought to be taught that they can decide to keep quiet, and their words can be used against them in court. Finally, the defendant can choose to be represented by a lawyer before questioning (“Miranda v. Arizona“). On the contrary, the client did not receive protection during the interrogations. The defendant was suspected of being pressured to weaken his will to speak freely and refuse interrogation without a lawyer.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the paper has explored various reasons why the Supreme Court ruling was not fair. For instance, the defendant was not informed before questioning his right to stay silent at will and that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law (“Miranda v. Arizona“). In addition, the defendant was never informed by the police about his right to have an attorney. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision remains wrong since the defendant’s rights were violated during the interrogation.
Works Cited
“Where Do Your Miranda Rights Come From? | Miranda v. Arizona.” YouTube, uploaded by Mr. Beat, 2017.
Soltero, Carlos R. “5. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and the Rights of the Criminally Accused”. Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases, New York, USA: University of Texas Press, 2021, pp. 61-74.