Thesis: The Miranda Rights as they are today are no longer appropriate and need to be modified.
A young couple is murdered in the middle of the night. The next night a single mother of
two is raped and killed in her apartment. Her children murdered beside her. A killer is on the
loose. The citizens are scared. The police form a task force. Finally, after weeks of
investigations and false leads, a suspect is identified and apprehended. The suspect is
interrogated and eventually confesses to the crimes. The suspect also admits to other murders
that until now were unknown to the Law Enforcement community. Months later the case is tried
in court. An experienced defense ...view middle of the document...
What are your Miranda Rights and where do they stem from? What magical event took
place that would allow our government to create such ridiculous stipulations pertaining to the
questioning of a suspected individual? On 13 March 1963 in Phoenix, AZ, the police arrested
Ernesto Miranda as he was suspected in the theft of $8.00. The police also suspected Mr.
Miranda of raping, robbing and also kidnapping a number of Phoenix area women. Mr. Miranda
was never offered an attorney and he was questioned for over two-hours. Eventually Mr.
Miranda admitted to taking the $8.00 and to also kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman
almost two weeks earlier. At the trial, the lawyers of Mr. Miranda argued that even though Mr.
Miranda signed a confession wherein he related knowing his legal rights, Mr. Miranda had not
been informed of his legal right to have an attorney present during the confession. Ultimately,
Mr. Miranda was convicted based largely on his confession and he was sentenced to twenty
years in jail. The case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, who in June 1966 reversed
the Arizona Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that Mr. Miranda's rights had been
violated as a result of not having been advised of his right to remain silent. In the end, Mr.
Miranda, who had won a new trial, was convicted again.
As a citizen of the United States, you have four Miranda Rights. These are vocally
provided to you via the Miranda Warning. Your rights are: “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 appointed for you” ("Miranda Rights and
the Fifth Amendment”). Okay, so as a U.S. citizen, you have rights, but what about terrorists?
Do they deserve the same Miranda Rights as the rest of our society? According to the Obama
Administration they do. “The Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read
Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in
Afghanistan” (Hayes, 1). So let’s say one of the terrorists who hijacked one of the airplanes
which crashed into the World Trade Center had been detained at the airport. According to the
Obama Administration and the Miranda Rights as they currently stand, when questioned, the
terrorist could have sat quietly in a room, refusing to talk. At the same time thousands of
innocent Americans were losing their lives. Wouldn’t it have made more sense if the terrorist
could have been continuously questioned? Maybe he wouldn’t have said anything. But on the
other hand, perhaps he would have given enough information necessary for alarm bells to go off
in the heads of the experienced interrogators. Thousands of U.S. lives could have been saved.
As we know, none of the terrorists from the World Trade Center...