Miranda v. Arizona Case (Essay Sample)

Name Professor Course Date Miranda v. Arizona Case (1966) Preface The adopted decision in Miranda's case was one of the utmost argumentative judgments in Warren's court, which has become overly worrying about the utilized means for attaining confessions via the local police. In this case, Miranda was arrested from his home, detained inside the police station's headquarters and charged with kidnapping and rape. Miranda was interrogated so as to get his written confession deprived of notifying him of his rights to remain silent and to appoint a lawyer for him to obtain legal advice. Ultimately, Miranda was found guilty and imprisoned for about 20 to 30 years (US Courts). Arguments The foremost objective of Miranda's defense representatives was to stop accepting his written confession, opposing this objection without Miranda's declaration of the constitutional rights in agreement with the 5th Amendment. The defense relied on the officers' acknowledgment that Miranda was not advised of his right to a lawyer and not to recite his rights until he obtained his oral confession (Samaha 275). Majority Decision (5 – 4) The Supreme Court has ordered the law execution officers should offer advice before the interrogation of seized individuals in relation to the 5th Amendment under the Constitutional Rights. Also, they must be informed of their right to a defense lawyer, and their commitment to silence, in addition to the possibility of using any statements against them throughout court proceedings. No statements will be taken as evidence obtained without providing such advice to detained persons. In contrast, the opposition judges stressed the applicability of the legal procedural provisions in the constitutional amendments to the investigations. The 5th Amendment's provisions are not intended to prevent the efforts that aimed at self-incrimination. They also argued for a majority due to new laws, due to lack of support for the widespread implementation of the Fifth Amendment (Samaha 276). Rationale In its decision, the Court relied on the fact that the 5th Amendment applied to issues outside the jurisdiction of the criminal courts and sought to protect persons from limiting individual freedoms through restraining self-incrimination. Therefore, the use by prosecutors of statements of recklessness or justification obtained in detention from interrogation is not permitted as evidence in court unless effective legal safeguards are used to protect individuals against self-incrimination (Samaha 278). The impact of Miranda's decision During the two years following Miranda's decision, and after examining its effect on police interrogations, it was found that the rate of recognition decreased between only 2 and 3% (69% to 67%), although investigators believed the decline was much more realistic, and there was no difference in the rates of arrests almost before and after Miranda . The rate of oral recognition during interrogations was 2% (dropped from 43% to 41%), and the silent proportion of susp...