Essay On Constitutional Rights

In the development process of America, its sound that legislative system has a very solid foundation for the construction of American society. The Bill of Rights as one of the successful act in America, its importance position has never been ignored. The Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison and came into effect on December 15, 1791. It has given the powerful support for the improvements of American society. The Bill of Rights has become an essential part in guaranteeing the further development of culture. The influence of The Bill of Rights can be easily found in its cultural revolutionizing. It can not only guarantee the harmonious relationship among all the walk of society, but can also promote the construction of harmonious

The case Miranda v. Arizona that took place in 1963 changed the way police officer question/interrogate their suspect. Back in those days, police officers used to get away with interrogating suspects without informing them of their constitutional rights until the Miranda case came about. Concerning the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that by detaining suspects before questioning they must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (“Miranda v. Arizona,” 2006). In the year 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police officers that arrested him begin to question him without informing him of his constitutional rights to an attorney

Whenever a crime takes place, the police arrive at the scene and must tell the one they arrested the Miranda rights. In world book online: Stanley L. Kutler, Ph.D notes, “Miranda V. Arizona was a case in which the supreme court in the United States limited the power of police to question suspects.” Miranda was a criminal who kidnapped and raped several women. He was not able to understand English very well, for Spanish was his language. When he was arrested, he was interrogated for about two hours. He was not given his rights in Spanish, therefore he did understand what they had told him. This means he was not given his right to an attorney or to remain silent. He then confessed orally and in written form. He then took it to the supreme court.

The video, Don’t Talk to Cops, by James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, published on June 10, 2008, is an informative and eye opening video because the professor presents key points as to why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. I personally agree with the Professors arguments as to why one should express their fifth amendment rights and believe his examples that support his argument are very insightful. Throughout the video Professor Duane argues that anything you do say, to law enforcement, can and will be used against you. He uses court cases and everyday people who are convicted from not remaining silent, as examples to support his argument.

“(a) Before he is interrogated, a person suspected of a criminal offense must be warned of his constitutional rights to silence and counsel; (b) counsel, including appointed counsel if necessary, must be made available during interrogation; and (c) the suspect may waive both counsel and his right to remain silent by an explicit statement to that effect after warning.” (Elsen, S. H., & Rosett, A.1967, p.646)

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

You have 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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda

The freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights are sill significant today, and thanks to them the American citizens have a right to speak out freely, assemble in a peaceful manner, or to get a speedy and more importantly fair trial. In my opinion, this document and its heritage has been incorporated into the United States in a way to ensure the strength of its character. Undeniably, the ideals represented in the Bill of Rights were introduced to serve as the country’s foundation.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in

The Supreme Court ruled a few decades ago that people had to be made aware of their rights. At the time, many individuals under arrest submitted to interrogations without a lawyer because they were unaware of their legal rights. Now, a Miranda warning is required

After the Revolution, the States adopted their own constitutions, many of which contained a Bill of Rights. The Americans still faced the challenge of creating a central government for their new nation. In 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781. Under the Articles, the states retained their “sovereignty, freedom and independence,” while the national government was kept weak and inferior. Over the next few years it became evident that the system of government that had been chosen was not strong enough to completely settle and defend the frontier, regulating trade, currency and commerce, and organizing thirteen states into one union.

Almost all Americans over the age of ten know the Miranda warnings. Many have them memorized. The precise rules have evolved over the years, but most people are aware that they have the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney appointed if they cannot afford one. That knowledge was not, however, always as common as it is today.

The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations on the power of the government. Firstly, the Bill of Rights is successful in assuring the adoption of the Constitution. Secondly, the Bill of Rights did not address every foreseeable situation. Thirdly, the Bill of Rights has assured the safety of the people of the nation. Successes, failures, and consequences are what made the Bill of Rights what they are today.

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

Even if you are taken in for questioning, everyone has a right to silence and doesn’t have to speak if they don’t want to.