Brown v. Mississippi and Miranda v. Arizona are two landmark cases that strongly define how police officers should conduct their investigation after arresting the suspects. According to Emanuel (2009), sometimes security agencies may find themselves in an awkward situation where they have to rely on the evidence provided by the suspect. This is common in cases where they can determine the motive, means, and how the crime was committed, but are unable to present a witness to confirm the events which took place. Self-incriminating confessions have widely been used by the investigators as the only testimony that indeed a given crime was committed by a suspect. In this paper, the researcher will analyze the effect of Brown v. Mississippi and Miranda v. Arizona cases on police work.
Analysis of the Cases
Brown v. Mississippi was a case where three Black farmers Ed Brown, Arthur Ellington, and Henry Shields were accused of murdering Raymond Stuart, a White farmer. The investigators did not have any other witnesses to testify, although they were able to determine the motive of the murder. The officers, therefore, used torture to force the three suspects in their custody to testify. The three made self-incriminating confession in regard to the accusations leveled against them and their statements were used against them in lower courts. The lower courts accepted their confessions and used them as the basis to sentence them. However, the Supreme Court overturned that decision and held that any self-incriminating confession obtained from a suspect through torture violates Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (Anderson & Brooks, 2007).
Miranda v. Arizona was a case where Miranda Ernest was arrested and charged of kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old girl (Sonneborn, 2004). The circumstantial evidence that the investigators obtained linked the suspect to the crime, but the police officers were unable to get a confession from an eye-witness or stronger evidence that would eliminate any doubt that indeed he committed the crime. The officers, therefore, informed him to give an oral and written confession of his crime. At the time of giving his oral confession, the suspect was not informed of his right to remain silent and to get a lawyer as enshrined in the Fifth Amendment (Burgan, 2007). The self-incriminating confession was accepted in lower court and used as the basis of the judgment. However, the Supreme Court overturned the decision arguing that the suspect was not duly informed of his rights as enshrined in the Fifth Amendment hence the evidence was obtained in a manner that violates the constitution.
Impact of the Cases on Police Work
The two cases have a major influence on police work within the United States. Brown v. Mississippi is now a reminder to the police officers that when doing their investigations, they should not subject the suspect to any form of torture (Acker & Brody, 2013). They now know that when confessions are made by a suspect after being tortured, then the evidence will not be admissible in court. In Miranda v. Arizona case, it is clear that police are legally required to inform their suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to avoid making any self-incriminating statements, and their right to a lawyer as enshrined in the Fifth Amendment before they can be interrogated (Van, 2007). Police officers must follow these guidelines at all times in their investigative work.
References
Acker, J., & Brody, D. (2013). Criminal procedure: A contemporary perspective. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Anderson, J., & Brooks, W. (2007). Criminal justice and criminology: Terms, concepts, and cases. Lanham: University Press of America.
Burgan, M. (2007). Miranda v. Arizona: The rights of the accused. Minneapolis: Compass Point Books.
Emanuel, S. (2009). Criminal procedure. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Publishers.
Sonneborn, L. (2004). Miranda v. Arizona: The rights of the accused. New York: Rosen Publishers Group.
Van, A. (2007). Miranda v. Arizona: The rights of the accused. New York: Chelsea House.