The Supreme Court landmark case Miranda v. Arizona was decided in 1966. The ruling pertains to the fifth and sixth constitutional amendments. In 1963, a man named Ernest Miranda was arrested at his home and placed under police custody. He was questioned for hours on the counts of kidnapping, rape, and robbery. The police obtained from him an oral and written confession. He was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on the counts of rape and kidnapping (“Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v. Arizona”, n.d.). Later, Miranda appealed his case at the Supreme Court of Arizona, citing that he did not have an attorney during the interrogation. The court upheld the initial verdict and maintained that since Miranda had not requested an attorney, his rights had not been violated.
This case was then taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, where Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered a 5-4 ruling in favor of the defendant. The court determined that Miranda’s constitutional rights had been violated and that the confessions were inadmissible (“Miranda v. Arizona”, n.d.). The Fifth Amendment guarantees one the right against self-incrimination. It also gives the defendant the right to remain silent during interrogation. The Sixth Amendment gives one the right to an attorney during questioning (“United States Government”, n.d.). The Supreme Court held that the police must explicitly inform the person under the custody of their Fifth Amendment rights. They must tell the person that they have the right to remain silent, and anything they say could be used against them in court. Consequently, the decision to confess should be undertaken with full knowledge of its implications.
Unlike the Arizona Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of America decided that it does not suffice that the Fifth Amendment rights exist. Instead, a suspect must be made aware of these rights under police custody. This is referred to as a Miranda warning, and it ensures people do not unwittingly confess due to undue pressure during questioning (“Miranda v. Arizona”, n.d.). Justice Warren explained that when a person is detained, they experience an inherent vulnerability. This could make them incriminate themselves, as Ernest Miranda did. When delivering the verdict, the chief justice said that the Miranda warning would help equalize this vulnerability.
The Supreme Court ruling of the Miranda v. Arizona case has had an impact on American society. It has changed how criminal arrests and interrogations are conducted. Before, it was possible to question a suspect until they spoke, but now, suspects have the right to remain silent. Further, silence during interrogation is not taken as an admission of guilt. Instead, it simply implies that a person is exercising their constitutional right. Police officers no longer have an upper hand in the interrogation room, which is what the Supreme Court intended to do when they gave this verdict.
Overall, in addition to guaranteeing people their rights, this ruling acts as a check against the possibility of government abuse. The law ensures that suspects cannot be forced to make confessions that incriminate themselves. It ensures that the government does not abuse its powers by forcing suspects to make confessions during interrogation. Additionally, a person has the right to have an attorney present, which further reduces their vulnerability. The law also reduces the likelihood of suspects making fear-induced confessions. When a person is informed that they have the right to remain silent, they will not be driven by fear to incriminate themselves. Overall, the Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court Ruling has improved the police questioning process.
References
Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). Web.
Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). Web.
United States Government, CK-12. (n.d.). Web.