Miranda v. Arizona

Mirandav. Arizona

Nameof Student

Thefifth-amendment to the US constitution has a section that prohibitsself-incrimination as a result of compellation. The rule does onlyapply to trial but also the interrogations by police. A person inpolice custody has a right to remain silent concerning the committedcrime. Miranda warnings are to be given to the person beforequestioning.

Mirandav Arizona case

Mirandav Arizona is the famous case behind the Fifth Amendment that led tothe birth of Miranda warnings. After Miranda was convicted of rape,the case brought to rise multiple discussions and was taken to theSupreme Court.

Thesupporters of Miranda, argued that Miranda`s sentence at Arizona wasmerely based on information presented by witnesses but no tangibleevidence. Miranda was not represented in court by legal council, andthat is why he lost the case in the end. The Supreme Court arguesthat any criminal deserves to be represented by a lawyer in the courtof law. If they cannot afford one, then one should be assigned tothem. According to the supporters of Miranda, self-incrimination wasnot fair.

Miranda`sopponents also argued stating that police procedures were not astrange thing to Miranda. The court of Arizona believes that Mirandais a mature person with the ability to make decisions, and that iswhy the signing of the confession was done willingly. The opponentsbelieve that the work done by police is getting crippled by suchrules.


Accordingto me, I believe that Mirandizing individuals in custody, has morepros than cons since the convicts are safeguarded against thegovernment and self-incrimination. The police have a role to provethat the person is guilty, and proving does not mean pushing them toconfess. The state requires that confession to go ahead withconviction. The Miranda law is necessary as it makes them aware oftheir right to remain silent.


Harr,J. S., Hess, M. H., &amp Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Constitutional law,and the Criminal Justice System (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth