Criminology

There has been much talk about Miranda Rights and the preservation in the news media recently.  Attempted terrorists are now being given Miranda Rights as though they were citizen of the United States.  While this practice has created much controversy, each citizen of the United States is to be legally given Miranda Rights in order to protect them from self-incrimination.  The United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision in Miranda vs. Arizona citing that Miranda Rights were a diligent part of law enforcement.
   
Certain legal conditions mandate the use of Miranda Rights.  Miranda Rights give an individual the right to remain silent, have an attorney, and refuse to answer any questions.  These intricate rights also inform the individual that any information provided of them may possibly be used in court at a later date.  Before any member of law enforcement is able to interrogate a suspect, the suspect is to be read the Miranda act.  If a suspect has been placed under arrest, the same holds true.  These rights are used to preserve the innocence of the suspect until proven guilty in a court of law.
   
It has been questioned as to whether or not a confession offered before being read the Miranda act can still be used in court against the individual.  The answer is no.  Any statement made in a confession, influenced confession, or out of duress may not be used against any individual in a court of law.  Other evidence may be used against a defendant in a court of law to secure a conviction without a confession.  Miranda Rights are a minor technicality that carries a lot of weight in court.  If due process is not followed diligently, the court can be forced to uphold the law by dismissing any charges against a suspect.  Most importantly, the Miranda act was enacted to keep individuals from incriminating themselves.