The rights of the accused are extremely important to me, because i feel that they provide protection to those who are discriminated against for crimes that they could possibly be innocent of. “…Nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” I think that it is unfair for anyone to inflict unfair treatment of someone suspected to have commited a crime. I believe all people are innocent until proven guilty or if they have confessed to the crime they are accused of. The United States Court system was constructed to be as fair and as just as possible to all citizens of the United States. Therefore, the legal system should achieve the most just sentence possible for all defendants that are proven guilty, so I believe that no alternative punishment should be served.
Miranda versus Arizona was a court case that dealt with violation of Ernesto Miranda’s personal rights. Miranda was arrested and convicted of the rape and kidnapping of an eighteen year old, in which his confession and identification by the victim was used against him. However, his conviction was overturned, because his court-appointed counsel Alvin Moore appealed it to the Arizona Supreme Court. The defendants heavily relied upon the fact that Miranda did not specifically ask for counsel. Was the treatment of Miranda violating the fifth amendment?
Cheif Justice Earl Warren decided to overturn the conviction, due to what he ruled was a clear violation of Mirandas rights that should be protected by the fifth amendment. He ruled that Miranda’s confession was not admissable, because he was not informed of his right to remain silent during his arrest.
| “ | The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. | ” |
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
I agree with Cheif Justice Warren’s ruling, because, despite the fact that Miranda was found guilty, his rights were violated. Therefore, any conviction illegally obtained is not verifiable. The police clearly did not inform Miranda of his right to remain silent during interrogation. He was also not informed of his write to legal counsel, therefore, unfairly interrogated. He had no knowledge of how the court system could use the interoogation against him, like a trained legal professional does. The conviction was also a violation of the Rule of law, because the police believed that they were above the law and could illegally interview and prosecute Miranda. However, the Constitution was written to enforce that every citizen of America is governed by the law and if they violate it, they will be tried in court.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
