Why are the Miranda Rights given to a suspected criminal?
For a project thats due tomorrow please help
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
In 1955, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape of a Jane Doe at a bus stop. He made a confession without having been told of his constitutional right to remain silent, and his right to have an attorney present during police questioning. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted. The Supreme Court ruled (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) that Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and that he did not understand his right not to incriminate himself or his right to counsel. On this basis, they overturned his conviction. Miranda was later convicted in a new trial, with witnesses testifying against him and other evidence presented. He was then sentenced to eleven years. He served one-third of his sentence and was turned down for parole four times before being paroled in December 1972.
When Miranda was later killed in a knife fight, his killer received the Miranda warnings; he invoked his rights and declined to give a statement. 
In 2000, the Supreme Court confronted the issue of whether Miranda had been superseded by the enactment of the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. A 5-4 majority ruled that the answer was no, because Miranda had articulated a constitutional rule which only the Court itself (or a constitutional amendment) could reverse. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).Source(s): www.wikipedia.com
- 1 decade ago
Basicaly, it informs a person taken in to custody and is going to be interogated, their rights under; Miranda rule (Miranda warning, Miranda rights) n. the requirement set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Alabama (1966) that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: "the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used in court against" him/her. Further, if the accused person confesses to the authorities, the prosecution must prove to the judge that the defendant was informed of them and knowingly waived those rights, before the confession can be introduced in the defendant's criminal trial. The warnings are known as "Miranda Rights" or just "rights." The Miranda rule supposedly prevents self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Sometimes there is a question of admissibility of answers to questions made by the defendant before he/she was considered a prime suspect, raising a factual issue as to what is a prime suspect and when does a person become such a suspect?
- J JLv 41 decade ago
The Miranda rights were mandated by the Supreme Court to protect people of their 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination (look it up on wiki).
Basically because a person does not have to legally say anything that will get himself in trouble, they must be told that right in case they were unaware. This way all future interogation techniques cannot be construed as in opposition to the 5th Amendment because the person was aware of his right to silence and an attorney and intentionally waived those rights.
If the miranda warning is not issued all information retrieved from a suspect is inadmissable (at least it is supposed to be) in court but can be acted upon by the authorities.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
This information is available in your textbook and several government books and other sources. Yahoo! Answers can't be cited in your bibliography. Good luck on your project. :)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
so that way people are aware of their constitutional rights