This paper discusses and analyzes the topic of the Miranda Rule’s effectiveness in America today.
This paper discusses why the Miranda Rule is well-tailored to guard against constitutional violations and presents an argument for the Miranda Rule. The Miranda Rule, first adopted in 1966, is still a contentious ruling in today’s criminal justice system. The paper explains that, while some critics of the rule feel it is not a deterrent to coercion of information from a suspect, most experts believe the Miranda Rule was created with a solid foundation to help ensure a suspect’s rights are not violated, and the information from any suspect is admissible in court. It argues that the Miranda Rule guards the criminal justice system just as well as it guards against rights violations and, because of this, it is vital to the quick and efficient trying of cases.
The Miranda Rule was created in 1966 as a result of the Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona. The court required law enforcement officers and agencies making an arrest to inform a victim of his rights, in accord with the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees freedom from self-incrimination. The Miranda statement (often simply referred to as Miranda) is usually a version something like this, read to detainees before they are questioned: You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning (FindLaw). Miranda has become common knowledge to most Americans because of its’ constant use on most police and detective television shows. Just about everyone knows about Miranda, but not everyone knows why it is such and effective tool for law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system.