Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Case Facts: Mr. Miranda was arrested and not told of his 5th Amendment rights. He ended up committing to a crime he may or may not have committed because he thought he had to. Miranda did not know he had a right to counsel and was interrogated harshly without knowing what he was doing. Miranda’s self incrimination was appealed stating a violation of the interrogation techniques used by officers because they did not inform him of his 5th Amendment rights. The case was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Question: Does interrogation without reading an
accused suspect their 5th Amendment rights a violation of the 5th Amendment?Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, stating that the psychological impacts of interrogation have no bounds at times until now and that the accused must know that he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This would prevent future cases of self-incrimination and make all interrogations conducted legal. But not informing the
accused of their rights is deemed a violation of the 5th Amendment.Significance: This case brought about the use of Miranda rights, which are read to all accused when they are arrested. They state that, “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 an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you by the state.”
My Opinion: Reading a person their Miranda rights ensures that criminals know what they have the right to do while in custody. Therefore, I feel that they are quite important and should be read aloud every time before an arrest. It reiterates what is already implied for the most part, but some people, such as Miranda, do not know their rights.