How did the US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona impact society?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona,384 US 436 (1966) required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be informed of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights.

The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence or testimony obtained illegally or in violation of the constitution from being used against the defendant in court.

The Miranda ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for Berghuis v. Thompkins,08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must invoke his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than waive it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation).

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

Miranda was a groundbreaking case in the right of the accused to be read his rights before police questioned him. It simply changed the nature of the accused-police relationship.

Police were very angry with the ruling, but historically it is generally viewed as appropriate as it guarantees freedom of speech and that self incrimination will not be used against an accused. Those against this claim that it ties the hands of the police; the general public has not always liked the ruling but would generally like one of their family members to have such protection should they be in a situation of being a potential accused.

It also was a highlight of the Warren Court, 1953-1969, in which Chief Justice Earl Warren's leadership lead the court in a number of cases which gave the accused and other lesser respected members of society greater protection by the law, interpreting the constitution in ways that those 'strict constructionists' (literalists) viewed as crossing the line into judicial activism. Liberals have generally supported the Warren Court rulings; and they have, sometimes slowly, become more accepted over time, though, of course, not by everyone.

Case Citation:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Answer 3

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) dealt with the need for individuals in police custody to understand their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. The specific protections addressed are the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, and the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. The "fundamentals of fairness" standard, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, demands that the accused be aware of his (or her) options in dealing with police so he can make informed decisions and not unwittingly act against his best interest.

The Court's decision permanently changed law enforcement procedures, such that people taken into police custody must be formally advised of their rights before questioning. Each state is free to determine the exact wording of their "Miranda Warning," provided the elements stipulated in the Supreme Court decision are clearly included.

Example

"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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."

Other versions are also used.

Update

The Miranda ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 US ___ (2010) (docket 08-1470), which held that a defendant must invoke their right to remain silent (by specifically stating that they want to remain silent), rather than simply waiveit (by agreeing to answer questions before interrogation).

Answer 4

Answer

Miranda did not change the rights of any person, it simply requires that a person undergoing custodial interrogation be advised and understand what their rights are.

Answer

Although the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination was incorporated to the States in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964); and the right to assistance of counsel was incorporated in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963). Those constitutional protections were already in place, but not widely known, and not practiced in most states before 1963 and 1964.

The Supreme Court decision in Miranda required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be informed of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights.

The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence or testimony obtained illegally or in violation of the constitution from being used against the defendant in court.

The Miranda ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for Berghuis v. Thompkins,08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must invoke his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than waive it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation).

Answer 5

It mattered because the Supreme Court ruled that a person must be advised of his/her rights as granted by the Constitution. E.g. the right to remain silent, the right to advised counsel, etc. Hence, the Miranda rights.

Answer 6

Miranda was arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape.