Miranda V. Arizona case

Extract

[...] The decision discourages the police from using torture to extract a confession and encourages a focus to investigations that gather more physical evidence rather than extracting confessions. Protecting the innocents is more important than punishing the guilty in a free country, and the decision protects the innocent people from abuse when they are suspected of a crime. Bibliography Coughlin, A. M. (1999). "Miranda Only Works for the Usual Suspects." The Washington Post on 12 December 1999. Miranda v. Arizona (2009). S.l.: Great Neck Pub. Miranda v. [...]

[...] The judiciary branch checks the executive branch through exclusionary rule. The system recognizes evidence obtained illegally as inadmissible in court. The policy applies to the protection against self-incrimination provided in the Fifth Amendment. It means that if a suspect confesses without the police reciting of his right to remain silent, the confession cannot be used during the trial of the suspect. The decision by the Supreme Court of Miranda's case has been met with criticism, and it is still controversial today. [...]

[...] ARIZONA: Miranda charged with rape and kidnapping charges IV. Argument against the Appeal V. Conclusion Abstract Miranda V Arizona remains one of the most law enforcement cases to have ever been handed down by the United States' Supreme Court. There is no other decision in the history of United States that have ever affected the law enforcement procedures and policies than the 5-4 opinion. A decision from the Supreme Court holds that an individual taken into the police custody, and if subjected to questioning, he must be warned of his rights to remain silent, and the possibility of using, in a court of law, his statement. [...]

[...] The court argued that the police acted in regards to public safety and that the statement made by the defendant telling the location of the weapon before Miranda rights were read to him was admissible in court. Conclusion The Bill of rights and related policies were meant to protect the rights of individuals, accused and non-accused. The Supreme Court stated that statements stemming from interrogation cannot be used in courts unless the statement demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards that are useful to ensure protection against self-incriminating (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). [...]

[...] Many rights of those suspected for crimes are reserved by the constitution, and they are designed to ensure that the accused criminals are assured of those rights. The phoenix police department may have taken advantage of the fact that Miranda did not know of rights by heart. In fact, Miranda could only manage to mention a few of his rights, but not all of them. Since the Miranda trial, police are required to recite the Miranda warning before any suspect is questioned. [...]