Tuesday, 12 May 2015.
Miranda v. Arizona is still an indicative case and one of the most important cases in the Supreme Court in the 1960s (Salseda, et al. 2010). This case has played a very important role in establishing fairness in the proceedings against the defendant in a criminal case (Rogers et al. 2010). The Supreme Court in the United States has taken a decision on this historic case, mainly from two different activities, in particular, out of 14
In Miranda v. Arizona, there was a defendant’s right to a lawyer who, in most cases, had the right to a lawyer
The second line was taken from Mallory v. Hogan (1964). The court’s decision in this case is that the violation of the right to self-speak is a pragmatic one for the State. However, even before that
Thus, it may be noted that the United States Supreme Court has used regulation 5
More interviews in this case have shown that the victim can answer questions in a manner that was relatively free. However, the information that Miranda had received after she had turned down further confessed that he had committed a violation. The entire process used to obtain this information was relatively fast in about two hours
The main result of Miranda’s work against Arizona in the United States was that police officers in different states would receive “Miranda’s maps”. Those maps had led to the Supreme Court’s demand that a warning be given. After the suspect was suspected of having committed a crime and arrested him, the court decided that he/she should not be questioned or interrogated unless he had received a warning, and the suspect had waived the right to remain silent when he received instructions from counsel prior to the answer to the questions. The interrogation must cease immediately if the arrested person wishes to consult a lawyer. Interviews will continue after consultations
After Miranda v. Arizona (Rogers, et al. 2010). This is because the responsibility for indicating knowledge and volunteering, the waiver of the right to remain silent, is provided by the court. In addition, it showed that the perpetrators or suspects should have been persuaded by the police to agree to write a statement. The court’s decision was able to change the situations and atmosphere in which suspects were usually arrested before being arrested (Rogers et al. 2010).
However, it was noted that the importance of the Miranda v. Arizona case had an impact on the way cases were dealt with. This is due to the confessions of the perpetrators in court against the suspect. On the other hand, people fear that the decision in the case would jeopardize the efforts of the police. The arguments of some people are that this decision makes it difficult for the police to obtain the important information necessary to determine the situation of the suspect
However, they fear that suspects cannot make other confessions after consultation with a lawyer, and the suspect may be released from the application in a non-interactive mode. In addition, the case was read to protect the rights of arrested persons and to protect them against abusive and abusive language, which the police used to obtain information from suspects. The case has been removed by police officers suspected of being forced to do so (Friedman, 2010)
Friedman, B. (2010). “Wages” (with special attention to Miranda). Arizona), The. Geo. LJ, 99, 1
Salseda, L. M., Dixon, D. R., Fass, T., Miora, D., &Learn, R. A. (2011). Evaluating Miranda’s rights and conducting a survey of autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5 (1), 79-85
Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D, Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Suman, D. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their rights”: implicit assumptions and compensatory evidence. Psychology, public policy and law, 16 (3), 300