In six pages this paper discusses such topics as suspect rights and Miranda uses in a consideration of the distinctions between interrogations and interviews. Three sources are listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: TS14_TEinerve.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
to have your attorney present with you during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you at no expense to you. You may choose to
exercise these rights at any time." The above words and passage are well known through out the legal and indeed the criminal fraternity,
they are of course the words of the famous Miranda warnings. These warnings were so named after an important case held in the Supreme Court in 1966, Miranda v
Arizona. (Reed, 1998). This major decision, although not a unanimous one, passing by five votes to four was an intention to take the
pressure out of any form of threatening abuse used by officers of the law during an interview or interrogation. Therefore it was deemed
by the court that law enforcers were thus required to give an intentional warning to any suspected person was being taken into custody (Reed, 1998).
The aim of this Miranda warning was to allow a respect to the suspects rights and also to perhaps rather naively bring forth any reliable confessions, it was
aimed to give the Judicial system a way of determining when a confession was given under duress due to improper actions and taken within the sense of the Fifth Amendment
(Reed, 1998). With the use of the above saying it must be stressed that the law enforcement officer would not always use Miranda
when interviewing a suspect, to many the use of Miranda is a last resort system of pushing the suspect into a corner after he has decided not to talk