Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of Miranda Rights
By: Taylor Owens
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? (With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak with me?)
The Miranda Rights should not be abolished but fixed in order to fit the needs of the United states in the 21st century.
Thousands of criminals have been freed because of the Miranda Rights.
(Levendosky, Charles. "The Miranda Warning Should Not Be Abolished." Criminal Justice. Ed. Jill Karson. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Dec. 2013.)
Any incriminating evidence (confession, any object found in a home search, DNA, etc.) that is obtained by police can be dismissed in court if the suspect is not been read his/her Miranda Rights or given a warrant for that evidence. (Criminal Law Handbook, Ch. 1:Talking to the Police, Paul Bergman, Sara J. Berman)
The Miranda rights did much good. Prior to 1966 (the Miranda vs. Arizona case), law enforcement could do just about anything to get information. Example: The Escobedo vs. Illinois case. Escobedo was denied his right to an attorney present during the interrogation and was also held in custody without reason. (Miranda Warning; http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html)
Popular Sovereignty= The People Rule
The Miranda Rights give any criminal suspect equal rights. Popular sovereignty gives citizens power against the government.
Limited Government= Constitutionalism
Limited government limits what the government can and can't do, as do the Miranda Rights.
Points of View
The Miranda Rights Should Be Abolished
The Miranda Rights Should Be Kept Unchanged
The Miranda Rights Should Be Amended
The Importance of the Miranda Rights
Limits On Law Enforcement
Without the Miranda Rights, police would be free to coerce and torture (physically or psychologically) criminal suspects as they please. In the Escobedo vs. Illinois case, Escobedo was denied his right to an attorney and was held without a legitimate reason.
"...that thousands of criminals have been let free and thousands of crimes go unsolved..." (Opposing Viewpoints, The Miranda Warning Should Not Be Abolished).
Evidence found without the Miranda Rights can be dismissed in court (Opposing Viewpoints, The Miranda Warning Impedes Law Enforcement).
Escobedo vs. Illinois case (1964) shows police need restrictions too
Before the Miranda vs. Arizona case, police could do just about whatever they wanted to get information when interrogating a suspect
The Miranda Rights protect the suspects
"Miranda has not impeded police work, the falling crime rates tell you that if nothing else does." (Former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton, Apposing View Points, Miranda Rights Should Not Be Abolished)
Clear evidence, even a confession can be dismissed in a court of law if the Miranda Rights have not been used. (Criminal Law Handbook) Example: Dickerson vs United States case.
"More than 130,000 crimes of violence and approximately 300,000 property crimes go unsolved annually because of the silence encouraged by Miranda." -Paul Cassell, professor of law at the University of Utah. (Opposing Viewpoints, The Miranda Warning Impedes Law Enforcement)
" FBI statistics show that only one in five felonies leads to an arrest" (Opposing Viewpoints, The Miranda Warning Impedes Law Enforcement).
To Get Involved...
You Should Know Your Miranda Rights
Without knowing your rights, preventing them from being violated will be extremely difficult.
Not knowing your right to silence could push a confession.
The Miranda Rights give criminal suspects the luxury of "innocent until proven guilty". Without these rights, a greater amount of innocent people would be falsely accused and convicted every year.
Nesbitt, Mark R., ed. Individual Rights and the Police. N.p.: Thomson Gale, 2006. Print.
Issues on Trial. This book was written in order to inform individuals about their rights and inform readers about the rights of the police. This book provides students, researchers, and even regular individuals who want to know their rights within the legal system. This book does not provide any information about the author, the only person mentioned is Mark R. Nesbitt (the editor). Mark Nesbitt has written a few books including a English to Spanish translating book. He does not seem to have much credibility but the series "Issues on Trial" does. Many different cases are covered that regard individual rights. Different issues are covered like "Police's right to stop and frisk", "securing the right to self-incrimination", and "defining the right to privacy." This information is only seven years old and seems to match the other sources I used.
Karson, Jill, ed. "The Miranda Warning Impedes Law Enforcement." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Ed. Jill Karson. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2004. Web 10 Dec. 2013. <http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovicViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindowfailOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&u=olym18035&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALEEJ3010120263>.
This Website was made to inform anyone curious about the rights of police. This website gives specific reasons and court cases as to why the Miranda Rights are unhelpful to law enforcement. Different points like the cost of Miranda, and the dismissal of voluntary confessions are shown. There is no author shown but the editor is Jill Karson. There is also no information shown for Jill Karson but because of the website in which she was editing, she seems to be credible. This source gave me solid facts on the downfall of Miranda Rights. This information in relatively new and matches my other sources.
Levendosky, Charles. "The Miranda Warning Should Not Be Abolished." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Ed. Jill Karson. Greenhaven Pres, 2004. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <http://ic.galegroup.comicovicViewpointsDetailsPageViewpointsDetailsWindowfailOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&u=olym18035&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010120264>.
This website was made in order to inform the reader about the proper use o the Miranda Warning and the rights that the Miranda Rights provide.Students, researchers, even someone in legal trouble could use this source to learn about their rights and the correct way to use the Miranda Rights. This author and the website as a whole seem credible because of the cited sources at the bottom of the page. This article does not seem biased because of all the varying opinions posted. This source was made in 2004 and is quite similar to the other sources used.
Washington State Constitution
Art 1, Section 9, Rights of Accused Persons:
" No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense."
The Miranda Rights give the right of silence when being interrogated.
Art 1, Section 7, Invasion of Private Affairs or Home Prohibited:
" No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."
Criminal Law Handbook, Ch. 1:Talking to the Police, Paul Bergman, Sara J. Berman, 2012
This book was written to show the rights of the police and to help the accused understand their rights. The author of this book has no solid credibility and could possibly be biased but the author did cite their sources. This source was very useful in seeing how police use the Miranda rights and how you can protect yourself if ever interrogated. This source is very new and has matched all my other sources in information.