Pendulum Law In Criminal Justice

There are a lot of very important cases in U.S. history which have impacted what America’s judicial system looks like today, Miranda Vs. Arizona is the prime example of that. This case had controversial issues and has changed what process happens when you get arrested and that is a big deal. If this case hadn’t had happened police behavior would be a very different process than it is today. Miranda Vs. Arizona was a case that changed the United States of America forever.

Due Process of law can be defined as a right guaranteed in the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S.

The Miranda v. Arizona was about a Mexican immigrant which he was called Ernesto Miranda. He was arrested in his home and brought to the police station where he identified by the witness. While he was being interrogated by the police the police failed to explain the 5th Amendment and the 6th Amendment to him which is protection against self- incrimation and his right to have an attorney. He was convicted and sentenced 20 to 30 years in jail. The Supreme Court decided by 1966 a 5-4 majority. This case created the Miranda Rights which helps enforce our civil rights as people.

The due process of law is a constitutional guarantee which was originally written in the constitution by the founding fathers in the fifth amendment, ratified in 1791 and was added to the fourteenth amendment, adopted in 1868, section 1, states: All people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This reconstructed amendment means that the law is for everybody and most important, it represent a constitutional guarantee is that nobody can be deprived of life, liberty o property without a fair legal

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

Cases such as Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Terry v. Ohio (1968) added to the accused party rights. It defined the Warren Court administration era judgements. Similarly, the Miranda rights case changed the course of criminal procedures in the country. The landmark Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona (1966), forced states to comply with their judgement to avoid violating a person’s Fifth Amendment right. As stated in the U.S. Constitution, a part of the amendment states, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (U.S. Constitution). The Supreme Court changed the conduct of police officers with a person held in custody (Long 149). Basically, the protect individuals from incriminating against their selves. The Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Supreme Court case allowed defendants to receive lawyers to help them in serious cases (Johnson 148). Then, the Terry v. Ohio (1968) Supreme Court decision allowed police officers to conduct reasonable sources without a warrant (Johnson 154). These cases represent a time in U.S. history where supports of individual rights would find victory in the court. The exception of those would be the Terry case where the Justices would put a limit of the warrants controversy. With that being said, future similar court cases limited the scope of the original decisions. Nevertheless, progress was made during

“The right to due process,” the only phrase respeated more than once in the Constitution, is guaranteed by both the fifth amendment and the fourteenth amendment. The notion that no one should be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” has become a crucial part of the foundation of the American legal system. Ascertaining over eleven different rights, including the right to a trial, counsel, habeas corpus, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the due process clause ensures that everyone is treated equally and has the same rights as any other individual involved with the judicial system. The original premise of due process dates back to 1215 to the publishing of the Magna Carta. Designed to suppress an impending revolt by King John’s disgruntled elite class, the Magna

Wainwright both made huge progress for the evolution of individual rights the case of Miranda v. Arizona made huge progress for the criminal justice system. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to being taken into police custody and being interrogated. Chief Justice Warren ruled, however, that the confession could not be used as evidence during the trial because the police did not inform Miranda of his constitutional rights. This was a landmark case that completely changed the way police make their arrests. Without the Miranda rights, it is easy for the defendant to be misled and possibly admit to a crime they did not commit due to the pressure put on by interrogators. This case is one of the post influential changes made to the criminal justice system. The United States is a country and society based off of individual and civil rights. Regardless if the defendant is innocent or guilty it is important that they are treated as an American citizen with the full rights of an American

The Miranda rights are the rights a police offer is required to say to someone when the officer arrests that person. It is the warning that officers of the law give suspects so they know about their rights before they are interrogated. It was a law made after the conclusions of the Miranda vs. Arizona case. The case was very close as it was a 5-4 decision. The court ruled that any type of evidence, whether it is incriminating or proof of innocence, can be used as evidence in a case; however it can only be used if the police let the suspect know that they have the right to an attorney before and during questioning and also that the suspect can be silent to avoid self-incrimination before an interrogation. It is now a staple when police arrests are made. In this paper, I will explain why I believe that the Miranda Rights are not necessary anymore.

One example of this was in the case of Richardson v. Wright (1972). This law required the opportunity to appeal and provide sufficient evidence before the state can terminate disability benefits (407,O’Brien). Today it is your right to appeal and to plead your case so the state won’t cut the benefits off since these individuals rely on these to sustain their economic lifestyles. The due process clause was broken into two processes which were substantive and procedural due process. “Procedural due process implies, the minimum objectives the government before it deprives any citizen of life, liberty, or property” (545, Chemerinsky). Procedural due process refers to a specific kind of notice and the opportunity to provide a cross examination for the recipient to plead its case to not lose their benefits. The second process is

The Supreme Court of the United States of America often makes decisions, which change this great nation in a great way. These changes can affect society in many different ways. In many instances there is dissonance over their decisions and the court itself is often split as to how the views are looked upon. The effect of the Courts decision generates discourse and on occasion, violence. This is what happened in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. This case changed the history of this country and left a tremendous impact, which many challenge, the ruling and still protest today.

Some of these rights are the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, the right against arrest without probable cause, the right against self-incrimination, the right to an attorney, and the right to fair questioning by the police. All of this is part of the Due Process Model but one thing the Due Process Model calls into question is, do the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the many? (Perron)

The jury system in America is also influence by the English jury system. Another one of America’s constitutional right is due process which is the basic for fairness that is important in the judicial system which allows our system to work with honor and integrity. According to Currie (1992), the factors of due process involve the United States Constitution; Amendments V, and XIV and in 1970 Illinois State Constitution adopted some rights for due process.

The second relevant point to make in support of the claim that accused people should be read their Miranda Rights is that these rights help avoid self-incrimination. For example, if these rights are not given, any statements made by the accused during interrogation may be turned against him or her while on trial. Additionally, if these rights are not given, the suspect may be pressured into a confession. In short, to maintain a fair and balanced legal system, people accused of a crime should be advised of their

As we can see, due process has changed our justice system from hastily-prosecution to time consuming investigation of all the facts. We should stop pre-judging the accused person until all of the facts are made known unto us. Due process has given all accused citizens an equal opportunity to tell their story, and the right to question the evidence that was brought against them. Even though due process has guaranteed the accused person his or her right to be heard