CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice

In the Miranda rule, which makes the recognition of inadmissible in a criminal trial if the defendant was not duly informed of their rights, was so thoroughly integrated into the system of justice that any person who watches television can read the words: "You have the right to remain silent. All what you say can and will be used against you in court. " Nevertheless, the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona is the subject of debate, and has had a great impact on law enforcement in the United States

March 13, 1963, eight dollars in cash were stolen from the Phoenix, Arizona bank worker. Eleven days ago, in Phoenix, Arizona, 18-year-old mentally disturbed woman was abducted and raped. Police detained Ernesto Miranda, 23-year-old man for theft, but not a suspect in the rape case. (Inbau, 2002)Ernesto Miranda was questioned about the theft charges, without counsel suggested. During interrogation, he confessed, not only in the theft, as well as kidnapping and rape in the eighteen-year-old woman eleven days ago. He was subsequently arrested, convicted of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment.

However, when Miranda was arrested he was not informed of their rights, as they were announced in the Fifth Amendment. "In accordance with the Fifth Amendment, no person may be held in response to a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentation or indictment of grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia under actual service in time of war or public danger, nor will any person be subject for the same offense twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, and should not be in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and will not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation "(Amar). Simply put, the Fifth Amendment sets out that anyone arrested in the United States has certain rights and privileges that should be presented to them at the time of his arrest. (Inbau, 2002)

Jun 13, 1966 U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Arizona Court overturned a decision issued by Miranda a new trial at which his confession could not be admitted as evidence, and also established a "Miranda" rights persons accused of committing crimes. With regard to the appeal, lawyer Miranda noted that the police never told him that he has a right to be represented by counsel, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, Miranda was not told that anything he said could be used against him. In the United States Supreme Court ruled that statements made to police, could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been informed of their rights. While Ernesto Miranda, the verdict was thrown, the police had other evidence that had been independent of his confession, and when Miranda ...