Criminal Law
- Submitted by: ycarter
- Views: 1028
- Category: Politics: Crime and Drugs
- Date Submitted: 08/01/2010 08:29 AM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
Criminal Law Investiagations
Phase II Discussion Board
By: Yvette Jarrett
Miranda v Arizona was a case about Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was charged with rape and kipnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. As result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged.
I believe that the Miranda v Arizona case has help with criminal investigations and prosecutions because it does safeguard a person Fifth Amendment rights and it can help later on in court because, a suspects cannot say that their constitutional rights were violated, or if they make a confession while in police custody, the confession will hold up in court because, they were read their Miranda Rights. I believe it gives the police a clear set of rules to follow, it makes it easier to admit confessions at trial, as long as the police obey the rules.
Now I do know that not everyone agrees with the Miranda rule because, some people that the Miranda Rights hinder some criminal cases. On January 6,2000 “Paul Cassell was on the News Hour show and he stated that solving crimes fell dramatically after the Miranda Rights took affect. He said 70,000 violent criminal cases each year go unsolved because of Miranda ( Paul Cassell, 2000). But I still believe that the Miranda rule is a good thing because, the Miranda Rights do not protect you from being arrested,only from incriminating yourself during questioning. There are still a lot of things that the law enforcement are allowed to due without reading Miranda Rights, the police are allowed to ask routine questions like name, address, date of birth, and social security number necessary to establishing a person’s identity. The police can also administer alcohol and drug test without warning. So the Miranda v Arizona case...
Phase II Discussion Board
By: Yvette Jarrett
Miranda v Arizona was a case about Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was charged with rape and kipnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. As result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged.
I believe that the Miranda v Arizona case has help with criminal investigations and prosecutions because it does safeguard a person Fifth Amendment rights and it can help later on in court because, a suspects cannot say that their constitutional rights were violated, or if they make a confession while in police custody, the confession will hold up in court because, they were read their Miranda Rights. I believe it gives the police a clear set of rules to follow, it makes it easier to admit confessions at trial, as long as the police obey the rules.
Now I do know that not everyone agrees with the Miranda rule because, some people that the Miranda Rights hinder some criminal cases. On January 6,2000 “Paul Cassell was on the News Hour show and he stated that solving crimes fell dramatically after the Miranda Rights took affect. He said 70,000 violent criminal cases each year go unsolved because of Miranda ( Paul Cassell, 2000). But I still believe that the Miranda rule is a good thing because, the Miranda Rights do not protect you from being arrested,only from incriminating yourself during questioning. There are still a lot of things that the law enforcement are allowed to due without reading Miranda Rights, the police are allowed to ask routine questions like name, address, date of birth, and social security number necessary to establishing a person’s identity. The police can also administer alcohol and drug test without warning. So the Miranda v Arizona case...