The Mirtanda Act

Name

Institution

Date of submission

The Miranda Act

The Miranda act is a set of specific rights that anyone under police custody is entitled to. It is considered as standard police procedure as police officers are required to recite these laws to a suspect under custody. Miranda warnings are given verbally during an arrest and on paper when a written confession is being taken. It is made up of four parts being; An individual’s right to remain silent, any statements made may be used as evidence against them in a court of law, the individual’s right to an attorney and if the individual cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them before questioning, if so desired.

The Miranda act originates from a 1966 supreme court ruling Miranda v. Arizona (1966) under chief justice Earl Warren (Miranda, 1966). He released a 60 paged written opinion outlining a police procedure that would ensure all suspects are informed of their rights during arrests and before being interrogated Under this act, unless this warning is given to a suspect, no evidence or information obtained during questioning can be used against the suspect, nor can it be viable in a court of law. The Miranda act is meant to protect a suspect’s Fifth Amendment right so as to eliminate self-incrimination during interrogations.

This act is based on the belief that during interrogations, there is such pressure on the suspects that undermines their will to resist speaking where otherwise they would not, therefore making it hard for one to exercise their constitutional rights. The Miranda rights are meant to reconcile the power police officers have with the basic rights of an individual. It gives a suspect the power to make informed decisions on whether or not to waiver their rights as given to them by the constitution.

However the act has had some limitations one being that a police officer is not required to explain these rights to the suspect, nor the consequences of waiving such rights, hence most suspects are unable to fully grasp the importance of these rights, limiting their ability to exercise it. Another limitation is that the Miranda act almost has no impactful difference in a police interrogations and behavior, as the police continue to use psychological tactics in getting confessions such as the use of threats and promises to induce suspects into signing waiver forms and confessions. Many police departments have also been giving training to their officers on how to carry out interrogations with regards to this act, hence finding deceptive ways of influencing suspects to waive their rights (Miranda & Arizona,). A classic example of such a scenario is when police officers persuade suspects that they are better off giving their statements to a friendly police officer rather than wait for an unsympathetic public attorney

Despite all these challenges the Miranda act has been able to bring about a balance that enables for the protection of essential constitutional rights of suspects without law enforcement agencies having to prove the legitimacy of the confessions they submit, as the evidence they collect holds up in courts. The Miranda act has therefore been very influential in ensuring all American people enjoy their freedom, as police officers are able to do their job without infringing the fundamental rights of all citizens. It is after all one of the fundamental American rights.

References

“50 years since Miranda vs. Arizona case argued at Supreme Court,” March 1, 2016, azcentral.

Miranda v Arizona, 384 u.s. 436 [1966])

Miranda v. Arizona, Justia U.S. Supreme Court.