In 1966, the Miranda decision actually dealt with four similar cases dealing with constitutional issues. The persons involved had been convicted on the basis of confessions made after very long and miserable interrogation. None of these people were informed of their right to counsel and to remain silent. In the title case, Ernesto Miranda, had been arrested by the police for questioning on charges of rape and kidnapping. Miranda wasn't advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent. After his interrogation, he signed a written confession. He was then found guilty later.
I agree with the decision because the Fifth Amendment clearly states that "no person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." I don't agree that he was let off the hook but it does allow people to be aware of their rights. If a criminal doesn't know his rights, then it's not really fair to him.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that you don't have to tell on yourself. That is why when someone asks you a question and you don't want to answer, you can say I plead the fifth, which means you don't have to answer. It is better than having someone lie, rather then just keeping quiet. That way you can get no information rather than false information.
This whole decision means that when you are being arrested, you must be read your "Miranda" rights. It makes it so that when you are being arrested you are more aware of your rights. Your Miranda rights are; “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
No comments:
Post a Comment