Miranda vs Arizona - A Landmark Decision Of The Us Supreme Court (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Title Date of Submission Miranda vs. Arizona The Miranda warning is one of the most common statements used by police officers across all states in America. The court case of Miranda vs. Arizona set precedence in protecting the rights of alleged criminals when taken into custody by law enforcement agencies. The ruling rendered has withstood the test of time in restructuring American criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court ruling of 1966 in Miranda vs. Arizona has had a significant impact on the conduct of law enforcement agencies in the United States to present day. The 5th amendment is a privilege enjoyed by all American citizens providing that no suspected criminal can be forced or compelled to answer any questions unless directed by the relevant grand jury. Ernesto Miranda arrest was on suspicion of having committed a robbery on March 13th, 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, he was neither read his rights nor was he granted the right to counsel. The 23-year-old suspect was unjustly questioned for over two hours resulting in the subsequent confession of not one, but three crimes, robbery, kidnapping and rape earning Miranda a twenty-year prison term (Bloom 268). However, when Miranda was taken into custody, he was not read his rights as stated in the Fifth Amendment. The infringement of Miranda’s rights by the police granted him the right to appeal and challenge the verdict rendered in the initial case (Bloom 267). On appeal, Miranda’s lawyer pointed out how the police failed in their role of informing Miranda of his right to remain silent, the right to legal representation, and anything he states can be used to prosecute him in a court of law. The landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in 1966 pivoted in favor of the defendant by a majority ruling of 5 – 4. The broad ruling held the police at fault for not exercising proper principles of interrogation, highlighting the need for law enforcement officers to make specific points clear to a suspect before questioning (Bloom 270). The rationale behind the Miranda ruling is anchored in the school of thought that viewed suspect interrogation to be a psychological game, and every person should be conferred the same rights (Heilbronne 1635). Practicing of incommunicado by law enforcement officers is a severe breach of the Fifth Amendment, consequently resulting in any confession acquired under such conditions being admissible in a court of law. The precedent set by the Miranda rule holds law enforcement agencies to a higher standard of ensuring human rights are honored to the later (Wrightsman and Mary 52). A single dimensional precedent was set by the Miranda case requiring authorities not to misuse their power of enforcing the law to acquire extorted confessi...