Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

We have criminals, bad guys, crooks, however you want to call it. But, they are still people in the end. and deserve some fundamental rights. If you ever watch Law & Order or any other crime shows, you hear the officer say these words "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning". So yes, you get rights, but it wasn't like this before.

Background:

Ernesto Miranda was a bad guy, I mean he spent his life in and out a jail for so many crimes. In 1963, he was arrested for kidnapping and rape, and I mean everyone knew it was him. However, after two hours of questioning, the police got a written confession from him. They used that confession in court, but the problem was the officers didn't tell Miranda he had his right to have an attorney present. He never knew he could just get one. Of course, the jury found him guilty, and Arizona's Supreme Court ruled that his rights weren't violated because he didn't actually request counsel.

Question:

Is police interrogation of a suspect covered within the 5th Amendment's right to protect against self-incrimination?

Arguments:

One side says that well, we all know it was hi, so there's no point. Also, it's his fault he didn't request for one. We didn't actually prevent him.

Now, the other side says that no, you need to read out the rights because what if he didn't know? That's not fair at all.

Conclusion:

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional what the police officers did, and that the rights would have to be specifically read out from then on.

Implications:

Well, this is pretty straightforward. Now, cops have to say the Miranda rights every time.