why do they call it miranda rights
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for. Proving that "cool under pressure" is not always a trait that's present in career criminals, the questioning escalated to such a degree that, by the time it was done, Miranda had confessed to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman a week earlier. How you don't just confess to stealing the money and keep a lid on the rest is beyond us, but hey, a confession is a confession! A trial a short time later sent Miranda and his unsavory ways to prison with a 20-year sentence. Maricopa County via His mustache was tried as a minor and received four years probation. Score one for justice, right? Wrong. Remember, this was 1963:
Law Order was another 25 years or so from airing, police still had to figure things out as they went. So when Miranda wrote "With full knowledge of my legal rights" on the top of his confession, authorities assumed that they didn't have to actually read him his rights, because what harm could entering into a gentleman's agreement with an admitted rapist lead to? Next, in what amounts to the courtroom version of holding your crossed fingers behind your back while you tell a lie, Miranda claimed that, despite what he may have written in his confession, he in fact did not understand what his rights were while in custody. Because no one bothered to tell him, the and dismissed his confession as inadmissible in court. Without that, prosecutors had no case. Ernesto Miranda, confessed kidnapper and rapist, was a free man. "You behave yourself now! " For a while, anyway -- Miranda was tried again and wound up serving 11 years.
It would be irony enough that "Miranda rights," which are intended to protect us from unlawful imprisonment, were put in place to benefit a man who clearly deserved all of the imprisonment (unlawful or otherwise) that came his way. But that would also be a pretty shitty ending to this tale. Unfortunately for Ernesto Miranda, he was about to learn that irony is a dish best served with a crispy side order of karma. Failing to learn any lessons from the earlier episode, Miranda went straight back to living like a criminal, supplementing his crime income by selling autographed Miranda rights cards for $1. 50 each. That cocky approach to having your life saved by a technicality didn't carry Miranda too far, though. During a $2 card game at La Amapola Bar in Phoenix, a knife fight broke out. While bringing a knife to a gunfight is never advised, it's generally accepted practice that you should at least have one during a knife fight. Ernesto Miranda did not. During a melee involving two men, he was fatally stabbed. The man who handed Ernesto Miranda's killer the murder weapon was arrested, but, thanks to Miranda's legal maneuvering a decade earlier, he knew full well that he was under about anything. He kept his mouth shut long enough for the man who inflicted the fatal blows to, never to be seen again. The man who killed Ernesto Miranda beat the system because his accomplice invoked his Miranda rights.
Farewell, sweet prince. May flights of angels rape thee to thy rest. The message here? Don't rape people. If you do, we get to laugh at the hilarious way you die. That's also how justice works. Correction: an earlier version of this article did not mention Miranda's second trial. We do not regret the error, or anything else in life. Yosomono writes for, and you should follow their, too. It was 51 years ago today that the phrase Miranda warning was born, after the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case about the Fifth Amendment. The Miranda in the Miranda warning was Ernesto Miranda. He was arrested in March 1963 in Phoenix and confessed while in police custody to kidnapping and rape charges. His lawyers sought to overturn his conviction after they learned during a cross-examination that Miranda wasn t told he had the right to a lawyer and had the right to remain silent. (Miranda had signed a confession that acknowledged that he understood his legal rights. ) The Supreme Court overturned Miranda s conviction on June 13, 1966, in its ruling for, which established guidelines for how detained suspects are informed of their constitutional rights. The decision consolidated three other cases that dealt with related issues: California v. Stewart, Vignera v. New York, and Westover v. United States. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said that it is not admissible to do a great right by doing a little wrong. It is not sufficient to do justice by obtaining a proper result by irregular or improper means.
The syllabus for the case includes one of the best-known sentences in American culture. The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him, it says. Justices John Marshall Harlan II and Byron White issued dissents. Nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities, said Harlan. The Miranda warning actually includes elements of the (protection against self-incrimination), the (a right to counsel) and the (application of the ruling to all 50 states). However, there are common misunderstandings about what Miranda rights are, and how they can protect someone under criminal investigation. First, there isn t one official Miranda warning that is read to a suspect by a police officer. Each state determines how their law enforcement officers issue the warning. The Supreme Court requires that a person is told about their right to silence, their right to a lawyer (including a public defender), their ability to waive their Miranda rights, and that what they tell investigators under questioning, after their detention, can be used in court.
The Miranda warning is only used by law enforcement when a person is in police custody (and usually under arrest) and about to be questioned. Anything you say to an investigator or police officer before you re taken into custody and read your Miranda rights can be used in a court of law, which includes interviews where a person is free to leave the premises and conversations at the scene of an alleged crime. In fact, Ernesto Miranda came into a Phoenix police station voluntarily to answer questions in 1963 and also took place in a police lineup. The police can ask you questions about identification, including your name and address, without a Miranda warning. And they can use any spontaneous expressions made by you as evidence for example, if you say something without the prompting of police before you re taken into custody. Of course, you re still protected by your Miranda rights after you re detained even if you waive them after an arrest. At any time, during an interrogation, you can stop answering questions and ask for a lawyer. As for Ernesto Miranda, though his original conviction was set aside by the Supreme Court ruling, he was retried and convicted, and was in jail until 1972 then in and out of jail several more times until 1976. After being released in 1976, he was fatally stabbed during a bar fight. His suspected killer was read his Miranda rights and didn t answer questions from police. There was never a conviction in Miranda s death. Filed Under:,
- Views: 8
why do you want to study criminal justice
why do we need to confess our sins
why do we need the sacrament of reconciliation
why do we have the miranda rights
why do we have a legal system
why do we need a legal system
why do we have laws in society