How Has Miranda V. Arizona Changed the Arrest and Interrogation Process.
1203 words 5 pagesHow has Miranda v. Arizona changed the arrest and interrogation process.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America often makes decisions, which change this great nation in a great way. These changes can affect society in many different ways. In many instances there is dissonance over their decisions and the court itself is often split as to how the views are looked upon. The effect of the Courts decision generates discourse and on occasion, violence. This is what happened in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. This case changed the history of this country and left a tremendous impact, which many challenge, the ruling and still protest today.
The Miranda Warning is intended to protect the guilty as well as the innocent …show more content…
The Miranda helps keep abuses, such as these in check. If the law is used correctly, the guilty would receive their due penalties. When law enforcement officers inform suspects of their rights before questioning, it is very improbable that the judge presiding over any case would discharge statements made during interrogation.
Miranda is important for many reasons. It openly identifies coercion of law enforcement officials and attempts to use different psychology acts to coerce suspects into a confession. It explicitly turns to the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination rather than the 14th Amendment right to due process or the 6th Amendment right to counsel to protect a suspect subjected to custodial interrogation. And last, it rejects a case by case approach to measuring or evaluating confessions.
The advantages that Miranda affords to a law enforcement official are as follows: First if the suspect chooses to waive his Miranda rights and make a statement, a proper recitation of the warning ensures that a court will admit the statement and any derivative evidence despite a Miranda-based motion to suppress. Second, if a suspect makes an additional challenge to the admission of his statements to policy on due process voluntariness grounds, there is little chance that a court will find