Police and Law

Posted: January 31, 2017

In the US Constitution, there are amendments made to provide room for the accused persons to express themselves and not be disadvantaged in the judgment. Among them is the Fifth Amendment, which gives a person under arrest right to remain silent and the sixth amendment the right to an advocate of their choice.

In the same constitution, it is not stated that police have the right to inform the suspects that they have the right to remain silent, and anything that they may say will be used against them in a court of law. According to 1966 history of Miranda, who was found guilty of rape after evidence in court by the police on an oath, Miranda had signed after he was arrested. A judgment was made to jail him for thirty years. Later Miranda filed a petition in the court of appeal where he lost and then proceeded to the Supreme Court of Arizona which accused the police of not informing Miranda of his rights after he was arrested. This contra versed the previous courts which had already made a judgment and also turning against the police of not informing Miranda of his rights, something that is not provided in the constitution(Ross 2006).

In this scenario, the judge who was greatly experienced may have viewed it as if the accused was enforced by the law-enforcement officers at the time of interrogation to admit that he was guilty and forced to sign an oath that was used as the evidence in court. This makes the accused to have equal rights as the defendant before he is taken to court. Afterward, amendments were made to the constitution strengthening the rights of the defendants and named as Miranda rights (Friedman, R.D 2007).

From the scenario of Luke Roberts and Liam O’Neil the suspects were informed of their rights by the police officers at the time of arrest. One of the suspects failed to respond to the interrogation by police and asked for a permit to look for a lawyer. With the sixth amendment which gives the accused the right to the attorney of his choice. The second suspect argues that he did not know whether to speak or not. The suspect ought to have been permitted not to proceed with more interrogations. In the time of the trial the judgment ought to be valid since at first, all the rights of the accused were observed when they were arrested. The accusers may provide enough evidence which will make the accused to be found guilty and lead to a punishment that is carried out by the judge.The accused may also challenge the accusations and later be freed or released on a bond.  The second suspect may be found guilty if he decided to talk something that may convict historical and make him guilty. The words that were said by the defendant ought to have been used in the court during the time of judgment (Blume, Johnson, & Millor, 2011).

The statement “I am not sure whether I should talk to you anymore may invoke the second suspect’s Miranda rights”. He may have been persuaded by police to admit the accusations this may be used as the evidence at the time of trial convicting the suspect and making a final judgment which may not be possible in challenging the ruling. Means that the suspect was begging for his Miranda rights. Having been informed by police that anything he was to say was to be used against him in the court of law (Blume, Johnson, & Millor, 2011).

In conclusion, the words the court has the mandate to make the right decision and not to disadvantage one side. The rulings made should be according to the constitution and make sure that all the rights of the parties in the doc haven’t been violated in any instance. If all is observed a fair judgment is made, and none of the sides will be revoked, thus making a fair trial (Ross 2006).

Ultimate discount!

Check the discount here

Order now