Writer's choice-must be pertaining to criminal justice please read instructions (Essay Sample)

Miranda Warnings Name Institution Course Tutor Date Miranda Warnings Introduction Criminal defendants have the right to adequate legal representation from a legal professional, as embedded in the Constitution. If one does not have one, the government must provide the individual with one. However, the defendant can refuse or decline a legal representative. They have the leverage of representing themselves even though it is never recommended. Besides these, they also have Miranda warnings considered necessary during the arrest period. The Constitution fixes the rights and freedom of all individuals, and definite laws are used to regulate them. The US Constitution considers rights as a form of guaranteed protection. However, many people need to understand Miranda warnings as rights, especially when police officers present them while taking someone into custody. Therefore, the essay provides insights into Miranda's warnings, their importance, myths, and misconceptions. Miranda's warnings and their importance The public usually perceives Miranda's statements as the usual warnings and needs to learn their importance in protecting them. According to Schreiber (2020), Miranda warnings refer to the statement of rights that protects an individual against self-incrimination. Nguyen (2021) illuminates that before 1966, warnings were not mainly used as an obligatory preventive procedure. Haney-Caron et al. (2023) assert that the case of Ernesto Miranda is associated with it. An individual who does not comprehend or know their rights can be victims of being irresponsible at the time of arrest of when in custody. The necessity of Miranda warning procedure emanates from the fact that it enables people to understand and become familiar with their rights. Miller (2022) reiterates that it helps them avoid situation where they self-incriminate themselves. The warning involves statements regarding the rights that police officers should offer a person when the arrested individual is in custody. Rogers and Drogin (2015) add that this procedure needs to be realized before the commencement of the interrogation process. The police officers must inform individuals that they arrest using the statement. There are also several variants associated with the Miranda warnings and they differ from state to state. The statement reasserting that the arrested individual has the right to remain silent is usually where the warning starts. The successive warnings include anything the individual pronounces being used against the person in the court and the person having the right to a legal representative such as a lawyer. The US justice system has the obligation of providing a lawyer for individuals without the ability to afford one. Nguyen (2021) elaborates on the necessity of the arrested person also receiving a positive answer or response to the question. The solution entails the officer inquiring if the individual understands the rights that have been read to them. If a language barrier or definite disability becomes a hurdle for an individual to answer the question then the officer in charge has the responsibility of creating the conditions for informing the person regarding these rights. Similarly, the police ensure that the individual understands the warnings before providing the answer. According to Miller (2022), ignorance of the question and answer can sometimes lead to additional legal consequences and misconceptions. Rogers and Drogin (2015) narrate that Ernesto Miranda's case is the genesis for formulating the warning. Miranda's accusation was based on the allegation of kidnap and rape. The problem in the case emanates from the fact that officers interrogated Miranda without informing him about his rights, as illuminated above. As a result, Miranda's confession can legally be considered self-incrimination because Miranda was not informed of his rights as per the warnings. Hence, the case had to be reconsidered and heard again, and he was imprisoned after that. Nguyen (2021) explains that Miranda winning the case emanates from the fact that the interrogators failed to state his rights per the Fifth Amendment stipulations. The landmark case resulted in Miranda warning being used as the arsenal for realizing some issues related to the Fifth Amendment regarding the problem of self-incrimination. Fundamental myths regarding the Miranda warnings Rogers and Drogin (2015) provide insights into the fundamental myths about the warnings. They are a threat not only to the warnings but also the subsequent waivers. For example, judges can sometimes be led to make assumptions that there is only one written Miranda warning that is applied uniformly in the entire country. Miller (2022) illuminates that research data reveals more than a thousand variations of the warning, which shatters the uniformity myth. Schreiber (2020) adds that defense attorneys disregard or overlook thousands of individuals arrested with impaired Miranda abilities. Professionals in the legal arena sometimes ignore and overlook these myths and consider the warnings as formality. In addition, there is also the misassumption that many individuals know and understand the Miranda warnings. The phrase would capture the communication of these rights, suppose it was true. According to Rogers and Drogin (2015), the practices of police officers downplay the importance of warnings. But, there are cases where the arrested persons comprehend their Miranda right. As a result, issues that entail more than cursory advisement denotes the likely and unnecessary efforts which destroy distractions at critical moments of investigation. Rogers and Drogin (2015) add that judges should always be in the position of instantly recognizing reasons for the commonsensical premise for understanding and knowing Miranda's warnings, especially when they are incontestable. For example, the constant conveyance of the stereotypes of the warnings through public media platforms and police dramas weakens its importance. Inevitably, the litany usually commences with the individuals being informed of their rights to remain silent. Rogers and Drogin (2015) argue that the statement is often a false premise yet compelling because defense and prosecution lawyers often assume un-hesitantly that criminal defendants are aware of and understand their Miranda rights. It is a myth based on the assumption that every person knows their Miranda warnings, yet it seems pervasive across most societies. Such a view should be unwarranted. Conveying/passing knowledge through warnings The US Supreme Court usually believes that the warnings represent the effectiveness of relying on and conveying information. For example, in the case of Berghuis versus Thompkins, there is the unquestionable assumption that the defendant understands and is fully aware of his rights once advised before interrogation. The conclusion from the court asserts that as the interrogation starts and continues, the suspect has the leverage of considering the choices faced and making an informed decision. The decision may entail either cooperating or insisting on remaining silent. The court presumes defendants are properly cautioned and fully apprised regarding their Miranda rights. Moreover, it may accumulate more information through the interrogation to further inform their decision-making. Rogers and Drogin (2015) argue that the conclusion in the above case demonstrates how the court can fall victim to the disapproved supposition that human minds operate in the same manner as an audio recorder that correctly and accurately assesses relevant information. According to Rogers and Drogin (2015), the mere notification of the rights of individuals should never be associated with the education of the person's rights. Writing something or even stating it should not be construed to be equivalent to being adequately written or read. It may differ from the warnings being understood, even when read or heard. In the determination of the reliability and validity of the Miranda waivers, the judges are required to add issues related to willful inattention. Miller (2022), nonetheless, elaborates that the warnings may easily include identifiable elements, especially those that preclude the actual understanding of Miranda's material. Overcoming Misconceptions about Miranda According to Rogers and Drogin (2015), there is also the misconception that warnings of Miranda entail more than just conveying knowledge that helps rectify the misconceptions. For example, not all arrestees, community members, judges, and defense counsels can recite the statement to remain silent dutifully. A significant embrace of the opposite notion and belief that silence can be used as incriminating evidence. A vital fallacy can play a determinative role regarding waiving rights. Kavanaugh et al. (2023) identify the misconceptions that will likely impact Miranda waiver decisions. For example, some jurisdi...