Procedural Due Process the Bill Term Paper

Finally, a lot of defense lawyers assist in helping men and women go free because of a technicality. On the whole however, it is a better system after the Gideon case because less innocent people are being convicted of crimes they did not commit.

In the Case of Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Court ruled that a defendant's admission was only admissible provided he had been properly advised of his right to counsel and of his right to remain silent, and if he waived these rights, the waiver had to be voluntary and knowingly. This case involved a burglary suspected who admitted to rape and kidnapping while in police custody. The defendant, Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to concurrent 20-30-year sentences for the two crimes he confessed to.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of questioning by the police involved, there is no way the confession could have been consistent with Miranda's right against self-incrimination promised by the Fifth Amendment. The Court also ruled that the defendants in criminal cases had to be informed of the right to have counsel appointed for them if they could not afford an attorney. Therefore, this case affirms rights granted under both the Fifth an Sixth Amendments.

The ramifications of this case are overwhelming. First, the 'reading of rights' has become part of American of culture. Nearly every citizen, certainly every one with a television has heard: "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot…" hundreds of times. This has a significant impact on the criminal justice system because now so many more people are aware of what these rights and that these rights, as a matter of constitutional right, apply to all of us. A corollary benefit is that law enforcement officers are equally aware of how educated all Americans are to the 'Miranda' rights and as a result, fewer police are apt to deprive citizens of these rights.Another benefit involves the rights themselves. The police often persuade the accused that cooperating will benefit them in the long run. It is easy for someone who has been arrested to assume that this implies talking will lead to leniency. The problem is that any leniency by the police is either not ethical or is strictly up to the discretions of the police. So, there is often uneven leverage whenever the police want to interrogate an accused.

Also, if not advised, many people would assume that they are entitled to a lawyer, but later. Without knowing that you are allowed to have a lawyer present during police questioning, few people are going to assert the right they did not they had. The same is true about the right to have an attorney appointed if you cannot afford one. It is plausible that most people assume this only apply in the courtroom and not at the police station. Without an attorney present, most arrestees will not know that they have the right to stop an interrogation at any time or that using the rights cannot be held against them. For all of the above reasons, the rights bestowed upon Americans in Miranda are absolutely vital to protecting our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process of the law.

The two very important decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the 1960's have both gone a long way in preserving the basic and fundamental liberties that Americans have enjoyed since our inception as a country. While there are times these safeguards backfire and allow guilty people to go free, it is more essential that all Americans have the peace of mind that comes with knowing if they are ever charged with a crime, they will not also be subject to the unfair practices that the Bill of Rights are….....