Miranda v. Arizona was a result of the Court’s perception that the voluntariness standard was inadequate to protect the privilege against self-incrimination.
stody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties.
He argued that custodial interrogation was not inherently coercive and did not require such a broad interpretation of the protections of the Fifth Amendment.
that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation.
The Miranda Rights were issued with a decision by Supreme Court of the United States in Miranda v. Arizona case (1966). It is a criminal procedure to protect the rights of criminal suspects on the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incriminating charges during questioning by the police. It is a controversial right, in the process of forming the Miranda Rights, many Chief Justice had mixed opinions about it.
In Miranda v. Arizona case, “Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion for the majority detailed the types of practices police use to gain confessions and spoke of the need to lessen the coercion inherent to custodial interrogation.” This mean Chief Justice Earl Warren thought the police were always trying to put pressure (and sometime coercion) on the suspects to get their confession, so it was necessary to have a procedure (Miranda warning) to against compelled self-incrimination of suspects in a interrogation.
Other Justice disagreed and believed that the Fifth Amendment Rights should be not interpreted to establish that new proceeding rule. “Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties.” This show according to him, the questioning of the police were not inherently coercive and the police will have difficulty in investigating if there was a warning to the suspect about the right to silence during the interrogation, which was the protections of the Fifth Amendment. However, this evidence was invalid because the police had many methods and tools to investigate and find evidence to accuse the suspects; they could not use the pressure and coerce to make the suspects plead guilty; In addition, it may be a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
After much controversy, the Miranda Rights finally came to be applied in a criminal case. Today, it is a right to silence given by police in the United States to the criminal suspects before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.