Miranda vs. Arizona Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Miranda vs. Arizona - Essay Example We know we have the right to remain silent and have a right to an attorney. Yet, the Miranda decision was far more reaching than the few principles that are read from a card. It reaches back into history to establish a precedent and presents ongoing dilemmas as it faces new challenges for the courts and law enforcement.Up until the time of the 1966 Miranda decision, police interrogations varied widely in manner and method. American law, based on English principles, had long accepted that coerced testimony or confessions were unreliable as evidence. This was the premise of the Fifth Amendment that made coerced and manipulated testimony inadmissible as trial evidence on constitutional grounds. Even though law enforcement eliminated the use of torture to elicit confessions, by the middle of the 20th century new questions about the ethics of more modern tactics arose.The court was faced with the problem of enforcing what was known as the 'totality of the circumstances' rule (Lively 293). It stated that the overall environment and climate that the confession was obtained in was what the courts were to consider when evaluating whether it was voluntary or not. Courts around the country had different standards and police had different methods. There was also the problem of the interrogations taking place in private and little was known about the methods being used behind closed doors. In addition, the mandatory informing of the right to an attorney had only recently been established. ... At that point in history, the privilege against self-incrimination did not extend to police interrogations and under existing law his confession probably met the standard of 'totality of circumstance' and was considered voluntary (Hall 553). However, according to Hall, they did not meet the new standards that the court would put forth in this case (553). The court ruled that a person held for questioning has the (1) right to remain silent, (2) anything they say can be held against them, (3) they have the right to have an attorney present, (4) and the right to a public defender if they can not afford an attorney (Hall 554). This is the basis of the Miranda decision. The court also held that police needed to clearly advise the subjects of these rights and they needed to be clearly understood. If the suspect waived these rights, they must do so "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently" (Lively 294). These rules were established to assure that suspects were afforded their constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th amendments. Supporters of the decision saw this as a move away from the strong arm and intimidating police tactics of the past. They applauded the ruling as a move towards fairness in an accusatorial system, enhancing the presumption of innocence, and preventing the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners and suspects (Vile 400). It also set federal standards for the interrogation of suspects. Opponents to the ruling saw it as too limiting for law enforcement. In a harshly worded dissent, Justice John Harlan argued that it would bring about the end of the confession as a useful law enforcement technique. He stated in his opinion that, "The thrust