Miranda v. Arizona. Impact on the Criminal Justice Field and the U.S. Citizens
The use of violence and force as the means of retrieving essential evidence from suspects, as well as compelling them to confess to committing crimes, has been causing a significant uproar in the United States. The case of Miranda v. Arizona seemed to put an end to the problem. According to the court provisions, the suspects must be given the Miranda warning before the interrogation process. The warning, in its turn, contains the information about the opportunity to consult a lawyer, as well as to refrain from providing the members of the police force with the requested information (Maclin, 2015).
It should be noted, though, that the Miranda Law has undergone significant changes over the past few decades. Therefore, the effects that the Miranda Law has had on the U.S. legal environment can be viewed as dubious. On the one hand, the regulation created premises for fair treatment of suspects, thus, supposedly preventing police violence. On the other hand, the regulation can become an impediment in investigating a case and resolving the issue. In other words, the safety of U.S. citizens may be jeopardized.
Application to a Scenario. A Burglary Analysis
Scrutinizing the case under analysis through the lens of the Miranda Law, one must admit that Grant’s confession aligns with the tenets of the regulation. Indeed, according to the principles thereof, after being provided with the information about his right based on the regulation in question, Grant had the right to either withhold the information or disclose it. By choosing the latter, he waivered his Miranda right, yet it was his conscious choice.
As far as Paul’s case is concerned, the issue is slightly more complicated. Seeing that he had already been given his Miranda warning before he agreed to cooperate, his attempt at withholding the relevant information and asking for the bond seems somewhat unwarranted. The first statement made by Paul, therefore, can be viewed as in accord with the essential tenets of the Miranda Law. Nevertheless, the conditions under which the second part of his evidence was retrieved can be deemed as very suspicious. Given the fact that he objected to providing evidence unless his bond was changed and then suddenly succumbed to the demands of the police after a private conversation suggest that the police officer could have applied force.
Waiver of One’s Miranda Rights. Definition
As shown in the example above, one may waive one’s Miranda right when being interrogated by the police. The identified phenomenon implies that the person under interrogation refuses from using their right to remain silent or to ask for the presence of their attorney. Waiving one’s Miranda right may be viewed as the sign of one having no illegal information to hide and, therefore, being innocent. However, the effects of the waiver may turn out to be drastic in case the evidence that speaks against the defendant is located and used in court (Eastwood, Snook, & Luther, 2014).
Deprivation of One’s Freedom. Definition
In the context of the Miranda Law, being deprived of one’s freedom means not being provided with the Miranda right. In other words, unless the accused is allowed to remain silent and contact their attorney, one is deprived of their freedom when being apprehended as a suspect. Moreover, the act of forcing the defendant to confess by using violence or any other kind of force or pressure can be considered a breach of one’s rights as far as the application of the Miranda Law is concerned.
Conclusion. Miranda v. Arizona and Its Implications
The effects of the Miranda regulation are rather dubious. Although the intent of the law was admittedly positive, the implementation of its principles leaves much to be desired. Because of several loopholes in the current regulation, the framework can be used for both good and ill. Furthermore, it does not prevent the police from using force and violence as the means of retrieving evidence. Therefore, a more reliable regulation needs to be provided.
References
Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Luther, K. (2014). On the need to ensure better comprehension of interrogation rights. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 18(1), 171-181.
Maclin, T. (2015). A comprehensive analysis of the history of interrogation law, with some shots directed at Miranda v. Arizona. Web.