Miranda warnings
Miranda warnings usually refer to precautionary procedures that are given by the law enforcement officers in the USA to criminal suspects who have been put under police custody in readiness for interrogation. The main task of the law enforcing officers, in this case, is to investigate to establish the truth in form of evidence attached to the suspects. The gathered evidence is supposed to be acceptable during the trial process.
Miranda warnings were formulated after ceasing the case of Ernesto Miranda who was accused of raping the young woman. Thus, Miranda was interrogated without having been informed about his rights to remain silent. Miranda confessed that this aspect could be discussed as a kind of self-incrimination (Shipler 140). Miranda was imprisoned, but the case was heard again. Miranda won the case because the interrogators did not state the person’s rights according to the Fifth Amendment. The law enforcement work was affected because Miranda warnings accentuated the problem of self-incrimination. Thus, the person has the right to refuse to answer interrogators’ questions without the attorney at any time despite the start of the interrogation process.
There are six key sections of the Miranda warnings. In the first part of the Miranda warning, the availability of data is considered to be a crucial factor (Rogers 186). When a suspected criminal is arrested, there should be adequate evidence in form of data that should be presented in a court of law. Data must be made available before a suspected criminal can be taken through the criminal justice system. In addition, the data to be used before a suspect can be convicted should be valid enough. A language that is unequivocal and clear should be used when presenting a case in court. One of the advantages is that the available data ought to be presented in a court of law in a language that can be vividly understood by all the concerned parties (Schauer 159). If data are not available for the trial process, then the constitutional provisions are considered to be just nonfunctional formalities. This can be a major disadvantage especially on the part of the plaintiff. Nonetheless, the data to be used in a court of law can be worded differently depending on specific jurisdictions. This fact implies that this first feature of the Miranda warning may not necessarily be standard across the board as long as the information provided is valid as instruments of evidence in a criminal justice process. It is possible that the language used can vary significantly without altering the data. It is a mandatory requirement that the suspect should be interrogated about the statements made (Schauer 162). If the latter was not properly advised on the importance of making such statements, then the court cannot be held liable for such omissions. Ignorance cannot be used as a defense mechanism in a court of law. Even if the defendant was not willing to give a statement during interrogation, it cannot be applied by the state as evidence.
According to the second rule, only testimonial evidence ought to be gathered. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution recognizes only testimonial evidence in the context of Miranda warnings. This fact means that factual assertions should be part and parcel of the communication used while making testimonial evidence. This type of assertion should be truthful or holistically believed to be true by all the concerned individuals or groups. Hence, a strong belief system can also be presented in court as valid testimonial evidence as long as it has been approved by the law. Furthermore, non-assertive conduct can be used by a person bearing in mind that the Miranda rule allows it. This may be applied as long as it provides incriminating evidence as declared in the Fifth Amendment (Schauer 168). This idea means that the Miranda rule is not restrictive on certain issues such as the provision of dental impressions, DNA samples, and voice exemplars by a suspect. On the same note, this rule does not compel a suspected criminal to present samples of hair and fingerprints for purpose of evidence in a court of law. The aforementioned pieces of evidence are usually considered by the Miranda warnings as non-essential entities in the provision of evidence because they are non-testimonial in nature. In any case, the self-incrimination clause which is clearly outlined in the Fifth Amendment does not offer any protection to either real or physical pieces of evidence that may be used in a court of law to convict a suspected criminal. This fact is disadvantageous because the plaintiff may lack any other piece of evidence to present in court. Nonetheless, testimonial evidence from some non-verbal conduct may be accepted. For instance, a court of law can consider the nodding of a head by a suspect as testimonial evidence. If a suspect nods his or her head in a court of law in response to a question asked by a jury, then such type of evidence is considered to be largely testimonial.
The third part is composed of the evidence that the investigating officers avail while the suspected individual is in the custody of police (Schauer 158). The primary objective of Miranda warnings is to safeguard suspects from inhuman treatment, especially in the context of police pressure after arrests. When the free movement of a suspected criminal is retrained or the suspect is arrested for a while, the best term that can be used to describe the situation is custody. However, formal arrests take place in two common ways. To begin with, physical force can be used by a police officer to arrest a suspected criminal. The suspect may then be put into police custody. Alternatively, a suspect can willingly submit to the authorities in order to be put into custody without being compelled to do so. When an individual is informed that he or she is ‘under arrest’, the aforementioned requirement will already be met according to the Miranda warnings (Rogers 173). In the latter case, it may not be necessary to physically restrain the suspect. When a formal arrest is absent, other matters of concern may also arise. For example, it can be cumbersome for another person who is in the same position as that of the suspect to completely appreciate the fact that a full custodial arrest is possible. This fact explains why roadside interrogation of a motorist is not applicable under the Miranda warnings. This idea also applies to the case of a pedestrian who may be walking past a road.
The fourth section of the Miranda warning stipulates that data must be the output of any interrogation carried out by investigative officers. Police must conduct an interrogation so as to come up with the evidence. An interrogation cannot be considered to be valid when an arrestee makes an incriminating assertion when guidelines are being given out. In addition, when the request for consent is given out by an arrestee as the part and parcel of incriminating statements, it cannot be used as a valid interrogation product (Rogers 189).
In the fifth section of the amendment, the law-enforcing officers or other agents of the state ought to carry out interrogation. Private or non-state firms cannot conduct an investigation in the context of Miranda rights. Nevertheless, Miranda’s safeguards can be made possible in a case whereby a police officer is referred in a case bearing in mind that he/she is always on duty irrespective of time and place.
Finally, the data must be provided by the prosecution in the course of a legal process. All illegal activities and data manipulations are prohibited to protect the rights of the suspected person. The information and data should be utilized only during the criminal trial. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the prosecution process demands the use of valid data that can convict a suspect. Miranda rights recognize that any suspect in custody must be informed of four primary things before interrogation.
The advantages of Miranda rights are in their protective character for citizens. Thus, Miranda warnings’ advantages are important to protect the suspects from being accused because of their possible self-incrimination, and the developed Miranda warnings are the effective preventive procedure used by policemen in the process of arresting suspects. However, there are also many disadvantages because persons and officers should be responsible in relation to their rights and duties. The controversies are in the fact that citizens and police officers should understand the situations when the Miranda warnings cannot be provided or used. Furthermore, the situation of misunderstanding the Miranda warnings associated with the Fifth Amendment can result in the development of definite misconceptions about the persons’ rights and their protection in the case of arrest and the further interrogation.
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments
The Fourth Amendment states that there can be no violations of the rights of people against unjustified seizure and searches. This amendment was applied in the Katz v. United States case. The statute safeguards American citizens from unwarranted searches of their effects, houses, and records. It states that a warrant may only be issued upon a justifiable reason for the search (Tsioumani 2). This reason may be supported by an affirmation or oath that provides a description about the place to be searched, things or persons to be seized. Although the Fourth Amendment safeguards the ideals of privacy as anticipated by the public, consistent explanation does not exist especially in regards to the meaning of ‘reasonable privacy’. Most law scholars have often argued that it is the responsibility of the court to give proper direction on the meaning and contents of ‘reasonable privacy’ even though it has not done so. Additionally, law students have also been disappointed by the same unwillingness by the court to expound the provisions of the terminology (Tsioumani 4). It is evident that the answer can never be provided by the Supreme Court.
As it stands now, there are four co-existing approaches that have been identified by the Supreme Court. These approaches are also in line with the Fourth Amendment. Searches and seizures that are not reasonable are indeed prohibited by the US constitution as stated in the Fourth Amendment. As a result, warrants to issue as well as the requirements for seizures and searches have been clearly documented in the Fourth Amendment (Tsioumani 5). An oath or affirmation must accompany any warrant for seizure or search issued by a court in addition to offering a detailed description of the location to be searched as well as the individuals or property to be seized. The amendment is important for police enforcement and the citizens because it controls the operations and search procedures performed by police officers, and it contributes to the persons’ right to be secure with references to their belongings and houses. This amendment prevents any violations related to the issues of people’s personal life.
The Fifth Amendment postulates that a suspect cannot answer to capital offenses unless the state indicts him. Certain variations to the statute only apply in the military. There are a total of up to five clauses or protections that make up the Fifth Amendment of the United States’ constitutional document. To begin with, no individual will be held liable for an infamous crime or capital offense if the person has not been indicted by the Grand Jury. Moreover, an individual can only be held responsible for such cases when they emerge from either the naval or land military wings. If the cases arise from the militia or when an individual is actively serving the forces at the time of the case, the person will be presented in court for an infamous offense also known as a capital crime. The affected individual cannot be put in danger twice. Besides, he cannot be forced to play the role of a witness or be subjected to any form of oppression, or lack of freedom.
The full judicial process ought to be followed if the person is to undergo any of the mentioned factors. If any of the provisions in the Fifth Amendment is broken, then justified compensation should be advanced in favor of the suspected individual. Hence, self-incrimination as described in this amendment is crucial because a suspected individual cannot be forced to be his own witness. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment is mainly aimed at rectifying some of the dominant violations that had been witnessed in the past especially in regards to the protection of suspects who may all the same be innocent of the purported offenses. The Fifth Amendment contributes to the citizens’ rights while it is developed to limit the courts’ activities. For instance, it is appropriate for definite cases to use the principle of the double jeopardy, but this idea violates the citizens’ rights, and the amendment protects people while preventing psychological and physical pressure.
The Sixth Amendment advances that the accused persons may enjoy the right to a speedy public trial in all criminal prosecutions. The jury of the cases may be impartial regarding the district and state where the crime could have occurred (Tsioumani 7). The regulation is an extra security measure for the rights of criminal suspects. In the Sixth Amendment, there are also myriads of protections or safeguards that have been offered to suspects. For instance, individuals who are accused of any crime have the express right to be tried in public in an expedited manner. The jury charged with the role of delivering the charges is also expected to be impartial at all costs. The district and state where the offense was committed should be made open to the public and all the charges should be explained in the clearest language that can be well understood by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The cause of the accusation as well as the nature of the case being tried should also be communicated to the affected parties. The accused should be served with prior notice according to some of the provisions contained in the Miranda warnings. In the case whereby the accused requires to be assisted, he or she has the right to be provided with able counsel that can offer attorney services.
Even before the Miranda warnings came into effect, the Supreme Court had already addressed the right to counsel. All the Federal criminal cases were liable to the right to counsel. The council is also supposed to be provided without any attached or hidden charges according to the Sixth Amendment. These rights were considered to be instrumental because most defendants were found to be less able to handle judicial processes on their own without the assistance of either the state or federal governments. The amendment contributes both to the police operations and to citizens’ rights because the principles stated in the amendment are used to organize the trial effectively, without violating human rights. Suspected persons receive the right to be defended accurately, and the trial is developed to meet the interests of the prosecutors and suspected citizens.
The Eighth Amendment notes that criminals may not be liable to excessive bail. They may also be free from excessive fines and cruel punishments that are unusual for human beings (Tsioumani 6). Perhaps, there are quite several questions that have been developed ever since the Eighth Amendment was adopted. For instance, can the Eighth Amendment be used to examine the constitutionality of an offense? It is definite that the Congress should possess some powers to that effect since it is the key law-making body. Currently, the Congress does not have an express provision to override the decisions adopted by the Supreme Court as much as it has the powers to amend the constitution. It is pertinent to mention that the legislative restriction is highly limited by the Eighth Amendment in the sense that penalties that are largely considered to be unusual or cruel are prohibited at all costs. Legislatures have adopted such restrictions in order to minimize the chances of human rights violations. The Eighth Amendment also determines the permissibility and admissibility of certain punishments given by the courts of law. In essence, penalties that are unconstitutional have been minimally provided by the Eighth Amendment. However, the prohibitions contained in the Amendments have been made clear by the Supreme Court so that it can be a bit easy to administer judgments speedily during the criminal justice processes.
The well-known case associated with the Eighth Amendment is Hudson v McMillian (1992). The cases connected with beating prisoners by prison guards are always controversial. It was voted in 1992 that cruel and unusual punishment was observed in relation to the case. Thus, the reference to significant injuries as associated with the Eighth Amendment was discussed, and the court stated that any injuries can be discussed with references to the amendment. From this point, all the possible variants of unusual beatings were addressed to protect the citizens’ rights.
The above-mentioned amendments have rather opposite effects on the police and citizens because they serve to protect the citizens’ rights and organize the work of the legal system properly. However, there are also similarities in the impact which are in the fact that amendments contribute to stating the principles of justice within the society, From this point, amendments serve to create a just and legal society.
Works Cited
Rogers, Richard. “An Analysis of Miranda Warnings and Waivers: Comprehension and Coverage.” Law and human behavior 31.2 (2007): 177-192. Print.
Schauer, Frederick. “The Miranda Warning.” Washington Law Review 88.1 (2013): 155- 170. Print.
Shipler, Don. The Rights of the People. USA: Vintage, 2012. Print.
Tsioumani, Elsa. “Many Relevant Resolutions Adopted.” Environmental Policy and Law 37.1 (2007): 2-8. Print.