Miranda warnings are not necessary
because they are not actually required by the Constitution and they do little
to protect criminal suspects.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or
What are the Miranda warnings and what is the case law
for using them? How are they used? How does it help or hinder criminal
Our discussion first, then the individuals, need to tell bad and good of post list references thanks
Week 2 Discussion 1
Unlike on TV police officers do
not need to read you your Miranda rights when they take you into
custody. In real life we only have to read the Miranda warning to you
unless we are going to question you about the crime you are under arrest for.
Most of the time on the street we have all the PC we need for the arrest
before we take the suspect into custody. Therefore most of the time we do not
read Miranda to the suspect. Once of a while we do need to talk to the
suspect or sometimes they want to talk to us.
I do feel that Miranda is
necessary even if they are not required by constitution. While it may
not protect the criminal it does give them a chance to not get themselves in
any deeper. The right to council is part of due process. It is a
pain sometimes when you are making good progress in questioning and they
decide to stop talking to you and ask for council.
You have the right to remain
silent. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You
have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to
have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If
you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
If you decide to answer questions
now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop
answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. These are your rights as
I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without
an attorney present?