The decision for the Miranda case was actually for four different cases that were dealing with extremely similar constitutional issues. Each of them involved people who were convicted based on the confessions they made after long periods of interrogation and without being informed of their right to remain silent and counsel. Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix, Arizona police and was accused of kidnapping and rape. He was never informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney. After much interrogation, he signed a written confession. Miranda appealed to the US Supreme Court based on the Fifth Amendment, that nobody shall have to be a witness against themselves for any criminal case. The main question was: Under what conditions can an interrogation take place that will produce a confession suitable for the Court?
With a 5 to 4 vote the Court decided to set Miranda free. Chief Justice Earl Warren explained that Miranda was put in an unfair situation. When someone is taken into custody they must be informed of their rights. Warren also expressed concern for the interrogation process. He felt that many defendants are put into such an emotional and pressuring situation that they are unable to practice rational judgement. Warren wrote that the Court's decision is also an effort to get rid of the pressures that defendants face when interrogated and limit self-incrimination. Although Miranda was probably guilty, I feel that the Court made the right decision. The interrogation process is quite brutal and it is important that it is addressed by the court.
Here is a silly cartoon that explains how the Miranda rights were recognized and what happened to Ernesto Miranda after the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment