Miranda Warning: History, Effects of Breach and Importance

Running head: CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL JUSTICE
A person arrested by the police has a right to be informed his constitutional right
against self-incrimination and a right to be assisted by a counsel in regard to the arrest. The
police officer making the arrest is bound to inform the same to the person arrested as
otherwise the statements given by the arrested person shall not be admissible in the court of
law as seen in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a landmark case
decided by the United States Supreme Court in this matter. The law enforcement system was
heavily impacted by the implementation of this rule which marked the principle of this case
as ‘Miranda warning’ or ‘Mirandizing’ and made it a part of the police protocol while
arresting a person (Schauer, 2013). In this regard, the paper would strive to discuss about the
history behind this case, thereby analysing the effects of breach of this rule.
In the case of Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 majority had
held that exculpatory as well as inculpatory statements given by a defendant at the time of
interrogation will be admitted by a trial court only if the arrested defendant was informed
about his right against self (Maclin, 2015). In this circumstance, it should be proved that the
person arrested aware office rights and voluntarily give them away knowing the
consequences This gave birth to the principle of Mirandizing where it is a duty of the police
authority to ensure that the person arrested has been informed about his right against self
incrimination, why he has been arrested or when he is interrogated (Maclin, 2015). As
otherwise, a person who is not aware of his right against self incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment of the US Constitution, his self incriminating statements would not be
admissible at trial. Three other significant cases what discussed by the supreme court while it
was dealing with the case of Miranda v Arizona, namely California v Stewart, Vignera v
New York and Westover v United States. In the light of the Miranda ruling, it was declared
a mandate to be ensured by the law enforcement agency of the United States to make a
person over of his constitutional right to be silent and beware of self incrimination while he is

2CRIMINAL JUSTICE
being interrogated at the police custody. The purpose of this ruling has been pointed out to
ensure that a person is made aware of the consequences which is going to come down upon
him in case he self incriminates, knowing that his actions and statements are going to be used
against him in a court of law.
Before Miranda Warning
Before the Miranda case came into existence and changed the outlook of criminal
justice jurisprudence, the implementation of the Fifth Amendment was negligible by the
court. Prior to 1960s the confession of a suspect used to be admissible in a court of law based
on how voluntary such confession was under the American criminal justice jurisprudence
(Smalarz, Scherr, & Kassin, 2016). With the passing time and the number of disputes the
Courts understood the importance of the implementation of the Fifth Amendment right that
protects Americans against self incrimination along with the Fourteenth Amendment right,
protecting people against the due process clause. The court in the case of Spano v New York
360 US 315, 321 n2 (1959) and Brown v Mississippi 297 US 278 (1936) laid down certain
test in order to examine whether an arrested person was influenced or manipulated for
making the confession. Voluntariness of confession was a crucial factor adjudged by the
court in terms of admitting self incriminated statements of the arrested persons. The courts
however changed its vision with the case of Malloy v Hogan 378 US 1 (1964) where it was
held that the application of the fifth amendment right protecting people against self
incrimination is incorporated in the fourteenth amendment rights of the due process clause
which is applicable to the States (Green, 2013).
In the case of Bram v United States 168 US 532 (1897) the court had discussed that
a confession would be marked as incompetent in case it was not made voluntarily, thereby
attracting the implementation of the fifth amendment which protects a person from being
compelled to become a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. The fact whether the