Week 3 Discussion
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Maryland, University College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
100
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by SZberry
Explain your thoughts on this matter --- should the U.S. Constitution be amended to specifically define a right to privacy or, do you feel that the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court (and tell me which cases) are sufficient protection in this matter; why or why not? Is there perhaps a specific privacy right that you feel particularly strong about personally; explain. Make sure that you use specific examples and at least two resources to substantiate your opinion.
There is always a debate between a personal’s privacy and catching criminals. There is also a lot of concern on how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to have these rights, but the fact
that things can be interpreted in different ways makes it harder with some individuals. The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects witnesses from forced self-
incrimination while the Sixth Amendment provides criminal defendants with the right to cross-
examine prosecution witnesses and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show
that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. It has had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda warning part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. A Miranda warning serves as an important reminder of your rights under the U.S. Constitution. When police question someone in custody without first Mirandizing them, anything the person says is presumed to be involuntary and cannot be used against them in any criminal case. Any evidence discovered because of what the person says involuntarily will likely be thrown out of the case and not presented in court. This can wildly alter the outcome of a criminal case.
However, in the case of the Miranda Warning, there are a lot of misunderstandings. Many people
perceive it as a warning or even a threat from the police. Sadly, most people don’t know about their rights. It can lead to some serious troubles, especially when a suspect is innocent. They just don’t know the true meaning of it. By knowing when you can use your rights, you can prevent incriminating yourself.
References:
Ingram, R. R. (n.d.).
A clash of fundamental rights: Conflicts between the fifth and sixth amendments in criminal trials
. William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol5/iss1/9/
Facts and case summary - miranda v. Arizona
. United States Courts. (n.d.). https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-
summary-miranda-v-arizona
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help