The foundation for Miranda Rights started in 1966 at Arizona State, when Miranda law came into practice as the combination between the 5th and the 6th amendment of the constitution (Savage, 2010). Basically, the law deals in interrogation and confessions. The law further gives directions to a defendant how he should to carry out himself during arrest and arraignment in court. The law was initiated by the fact that Miranda had pleaded guilty to a theft crime and another rape count that pushed him to jail for twenty years. The ruling was later challenged by the attorney; he was denied an appeal, which was later granted to him. According to Miranda’s attorney, his confession had made him more vulnerable to law and had pushed him to jail unfairly (Savage, 2010).
The law indicates to the suspects that they have a right to either remain silent or hire the services of an attorney during questioning; they also receive a warning that whatever one says shall be used against them in a court of law (O’Connor, 2010). No matter how effective the laws are held by some courts, there are some massive violations of the rights as they are read to the suspects during trials. One of the cases standing out is the removal of the right of the suspect having an attorney during questioning. Although the drop of the right is taken lightly, it is not as light as it looks since it has led to massive violation of the rights to fair hearing (O’Connor, 2010).
For the law to be applicable, it needs to involve custody of the suspect or his interrogation while in custody. Under custody, the law applies to cases in which the conditions of custody are compromised and to situations where the suspect is held unfairly.
Cumberland County district courts administer the law to its detainees in order to accord them their rights and to make sure they are not harassed by the judicial process. In Cumberland, it is important for suspects to get the services of experienced attorneys to help them come up with the statements that are not self incriminating (Dershowitz, 2008, p. 142). The court grants Miranda rights to cases such as drunken driving, fraud, manslaughter, theft, assault, and drug possession. If the suspect is not careful with what he says to the investigators, some of the information given could be used to incriminate them and lead to imprisonment.
Despite the fact that the law should be applied in many cases, including those where the suspect is accused of many crimes, there are several limitations that come with it, including protection of police. Some of the exceptions imposed include a waiver which gives the suspect a right to remain silent during examination and say that they do not want to talk until they have an attorney (Priest, 2011). However, most of the scholars are against the ruling and assert the waivers completely violate the rights granted in Miranda laws. Some of the correction made to the changed Miranda laws gives the suspect an option of either choosing to waive those rights or having them remain intact (Priest, 2011). The revision of the law allows police to read the rights to the suspect before granting them the option of either waiving the rights or taking up the rights and that of being represented by an attorney during questioning.
The rulings made on a case against a suspect should be made on the conscious confessions made about a case. Any unconscious confessions made about a suspect should not be used in a court of law (Dershowitz, 2008, p. 142). This can be explained by a case that was ruled on a confession that the suspect made unconsciously. For example a suspect was denied a right to an attorney and after trying to gain information from the suspect the investigator decided to ask him if he was asking God to forgive him for shooting down the victim. The suspect responded with a yes and this was used as a basis to convict him for murder.
References
Dershowitz, A. (2008). Is there a right to remain silent? New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Connor, T. (2010). Miranda law: A guide to interpretation and exceptions. Web.
Priest, L. (2011). Cumberland County – Judicial District 12. Web.
Savage, D. G. (2010). Supreme court backs off strict enforcement of Miranda rights. Web.