The video discussed the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights on arrest, specifically the right against self-incrimination and access to a lawyer. The perception at the time about the requirement to read a suspect their rights was those arrested for a crime did not deserve those rights. This seems a strange concept since these rights are not selective and one should not be deprived of rights and freedoms without due process. They point out that people were expected to know their rights in order to exercise them. Sadly I expect most Americans do not know their rights and therefore do not know to exercise them. Ironically, those familiar with the criminal justice system may be more aware of their rights than those who don’t come in contact with the system. Maybe that should be a lesson for all. Ironically, the ruling widely believed to “handcuff the police” actually had the benefit of forcing better training, leading to stronger cases and greater success on convictions. Not so bad in the final analysis. Humvee123
I also thought it was ironic that people unfamiliar to the justice system were more unlikely to know exactly what they're rights are. The general public should do their part and become at least somewhat familiar with state laws and their rights. And I also agree that the end product was not necessarily bad. Acquainted123
There are a lot of people that don’t know their rights when being arrested, you can go through schooling and not know that you have the right to not speak so you won’t self-incriminate yourself. In grade school and high school you take one class on it but other than that unless you study it you won’t learn too much about your rights. The Miranda rights are a good thing to tell people being arrested because it can teach them what rights they have if they don’t know them or remind them if they do know them. Birdman123
The fourth and fifth amendments that were discussed in this video were broken down to an understandable level as well as given a lot of background information towards different cases and how these rights came about. It went into talking about the Miranda rights as well as Miranda v. Arizona. This court case “revolutionized the justice system”. Before the Miranda rights, suspects had very few rights and were almost always presumed guilty. Suspects were also not treated as fairly as they are now with the Miranda rights. A lot of them were beaten and abused until they gave up a confession. With these Miranda rights it presents the option of not complying with any of the questions that are asked therefore they cannot use any self-incriminating statements that were made before the arrest against the suspect. After the suspect has been read their Miranda rights and has been informed of that anything they do or say can and will be used against them in court is when their self-incriminating actions or statements can be used against them in the court of law. sparks123
The fourth and fifth amendment was very well discussed in this video they also used the sixth amendment as well witch is included in the Miranda rights. Elite123
I think they were really informative in this video about the 4th, 5th, amendment, I think they could have discussed the 6th amendment a bit more. I think the Miranda rights are a great thing to have to help protect the people in our country. GRUNT123
Enforcing better training is a great way to think about it. Enforcing better training for the reading of rights and containing evidence. The big key is sticking to that same trained program even after training is over. Just because you were taught to do something a certain way does not mean you will stick to it each and every time that you run into a situation as such. Yet if you follow the rules and procedures and do it right each time. It will be a bit harder to mess up than it would be if you started off on the wrong foot to begin with. Forensics123
I agree the fourth and fifth amendment was very well explained in this video. Could be another source that is used in our term paper for the semester, if you chose that specific topic. "You have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney if you can not afford an attorney.. one will be appointed to you." Forensics123
The video talks more in depth about what the Fourth and Fifth Amendments really mean. Before the Supreme Court decision on Miranda v. Arizona the police were basically like Dirty Harry, busting criminals heads to get some information or to get a confession. The ruling of the Miranda case made it so that the criminals knew their rights when they were being arrested and that they had the freedom to have their attorney, have whatever they say be used against them in a court of law, and to say nothing at all if they so choose. The court case changed how some police officers interrogated a suspect. Instead of basically beating the answers out of someone they had to rely on words and trickery to have the suspect trip over their own lies to find the truth or give a certain piece of information that they didn’t want to share that helps the case. Birdman123
This video was very long it was interesting at some points but others it was hard for me to pay attention and at sometimes it was hard to follow. The documentary that Kim Burns created was very intense it showed how the police have a lot of power and it did show racist profiling and they falsely convicted five people for a rape charge. Salaam spent 7 years in prison until his case was overturn. Salaam was told that they would loose the case , and they wanted him to confuses to something he didn't do so he could get the least charge possible. He had a opportunity to say something before he was sentenced and he used a poem to express what he was thinking. On his twenty first birthday they sent him to the adult prison. When he was in prison he practiced his martial arts and he thought he would have to use it to defend him self. He talks about Donald Trumps ad that he bought he said that it gave birth to a individual who wrote that the oldest one should be hanged from a tree in central park he was never interviewed once but there where all these story's going around about them. Elite123
This video was short and simple it was straight to the point although she did talk pretty fast I had to rewind it a few times to understand her hits on the fourth and fifth and sixth amendment we have spent a lot of time in class on these topics so I am pretty confident about my knowledge on these amendments Before the Miranda V Arizona case criminals/suspects where given very little rights the Miranda Warning gave them a lot of rights they did not have before. The suspect was not given his rights witch was the building blocks to the Miranda V Arizona case. A lot of times before this case it was up to them to know there rights no one read it to them. It was stated that the officer who arrests the suspect/criminal will read there rights to them and if they don't the whole case could be thrown out. Elite123
This video did a good job discussing the fourth and fifth amendments and used cases involving them as support. These cases were extremely important to the justice system as we know it today and it is important to understand why things like the Miranda Rights are so critical to have. The video also highlighted that because of historical cases such as Miranda Vs. Arizona suspects in criminal cases have more protection than the previously did. A confession can no longer be beat out of them, and they cannot be tricked or conned into confessing. Unfortunately even though the public has been provided these rights a good portion of the public does not fully understand them or take advantage of them which leads to further problems. Acquainted123
It seems that a lot of people really are still blind to there 5th and 6th amendment rights. Now that confessions cant be conned out of people I think it makes the cases a lot more fair. When someone is interrogated without a lawyer present they can sometimes be tricked into saying things that they don't mean to. I think Miranda rights leveled out the playing field for everyone. gabegun123
This video about Miranda v. Arizona was informative, before this decision, suspects were given few rights and mostly convicted guilty. Now police have to clearly give the rights to the accused. The Miranda rights protect citizens from saying to much. I personal like that police have have give the Miranda rights, sometimes when police have arrested someone they could use anything they say against that person, so if the person is not in the wrong that person could say a lot of the wrong things to make them seem like they are guilty. Some people think that criminals get to much lead way now because of the Miranda rights and I can see where one would think that. Overall I liked this video and thought it was very informative. GRTUNT123
This video discussed how Miranda rights came to be and also how they have helped officers in modern times. Before Miranda rights officers did not have to inform people why they were being arrested and also did not have to inform people of there 5th and 6th amendment rights. This led to problems because negligence is not a criminal act. If an individual is negligent of there amendment rights than they are unaware of how they can be affected by the things they say. With the Miranda rights being in effect criminals are now informed of there rights, in which case things they do and say can now be evidence. This helped both the criminals and the officers. Criminals now knew that they can wait for a attorney before they speak and officers had a new defense. Miranda rights have made a huge impact on the modern day criminal justice system. gabegun123
Its definitely a good thing Miranda V Arizona happened. People tend to feel that they still are having their rights infringed upon, I cant imagine what it must have been like before this case happened. Dangkids123
I agree that the Miranda rights have made a great impact on today's criminal justice system. Criminals can't just walk around thinking they're untouchable. Unless you specifically request an attorney, investigators can continue to question you and the words you say can come back to bite you hard. The bridge you burn today may be the one you need to cross tomorrow. Gators123
Being informed of your rights upon arrest is very important. Everyone should be entitled to equal rights. Ernesto Miranda was only brought to the station for questioning yet never told what he had been brought in for. Nor was he ever read his fifth or sixth amendment right. Assuming that a person knows their right yet the arresting officer does not explain the rights that he or she is given. Who is responsible for reading Miranda rights to an arrestee at the time of an arrest? The arresting officer is responsible to do so. "You have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right o an attorney if you can not afford an attorney.. one will be appointed to you." Miranda does not go into affect until an arrest is actually made. Custody can simply mean speaking with an officer out on the street. Custody means you are not allowed to leave at your own free will. Arrest means to deprive a person of his or her liberty in purported to an arrestee procedure of the criminal justice system. During an arrest your Miranda rights are to be read, yet when you are in custody being read your rights is not required. Forensics123
Enforcing better training is a great way to think about it. Enforcing better training for the reading of rights and containing evidence. The big key is sticking to that same trained program even after training is over. Just because you were taught to do something a certain way does not mean you will stick to it each and every time that you run into a situation as such. Yet if you follow the rules and procedures and do it right each time. It will be a bit harder to mess up than it would be if you started off on the wrong foot to begin with. Forensics123
This video really helped me better understand the Miranda rights, and what had to happen before Miranda rights came in to play. Before Miranda V Arizona the accused had very little to no rights at all. You were automatically presumed guilty, and sometimes even beaten for no reason at all. This all changed in 1966 when Ernesto Miranda appealed his case to the supreme court. The reason for this was because Ernesto was not read his rights at the time of arrest. What he told the Court was he didn't confess voluntarily, and that he was unaware of his 5th amendment rights. Which is the right to refuse to answer a self incriminating question. Dangkids123
It is a good informative video on how the Miranda got started and the background information with it. Knowing that you can convict yourself if asked directly and how that has changed and such evidence can be dismissed due to rights being exercised. wreked123
The fact that most people don't know there basic rights along with any other rights that could convict them if they didn't know was crap at the time. The case that started this was not the best being a rape case and the guy never got arrested since he said he wasn't read his rights. Many cases to follow along with that one that help strengthen the accused rights and make the police look more professional instead of the stuff that could get away in court now cant because of rights being exercised. wreked123
This video was discussing the case between Ernesto Miranda and the State of Arizona. In this case, Miranda was arrested due to evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen year old woman. Miranda was never notified that he had a right to counsel and ended up confessing without a lawyer being present. Miranda was eventually convicted of the kidnap and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years. The Arizona Supreme Court would not hear the case as Miranda had never requested a lawyer.
Today our Miranda rights must be read to us prior to any kind of questioning that is done. However, if the person being questioned either does not understand the rights or does not acknowledge that they understand the rights, the case gets a little more tricky. If there is sufficient evidence that a crime did occur, the case is able to push on and the perpetrator may still end up being locked up. Gators123
The video discussed the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights on arrest, specifically the right against self-incrimination and access to a lawyer. The perception at the time about the requirement to read a suspect their rights was those arrested for a crime did not deserve those rights. This seems a strange concept since these rights are not selective and one should not be deprived of rights and freedoms without due process. They point out that people were expected to know their rights in order to exercise them. Sadly I expect most Americans do not know their rights and therefore do not know to exercise them. Ironically, those familiar with the criminal justice system may be more aware of their rights than those who don’t come in contact with the system. Maybe that should be a lesson for all.
ReplyDeleteIronically, the ruling widely believed to “handcuff the police” actually had the benefit of forcing better training, leading to stronger cases and greater success on convictions. Not so bad in the final analysis. Humvee123
I also thought it was ironic that people unfamiliar to the justice system were more unlikely to know exactly what they're rights are. The general public should do their part and become at least somewhat familiar with state laws and their rights. And I also agree that the end product was not necessarily bad. Acquainted123
DeleteThere are a lot of people that don’t know their rights when being arrested, you can go through schooling and not know that you have the right to not speak so you won’t self-incriminate yourself. In grade school and high school you take one class on it but other than that unless you study it you won’t learn too much about your rights. The Miranda rights are a good thing to tell people being arrested because it can teach them what rights they have if they don’t know them or remind them if they do know them. Birdman123
DeleteThe fourth and fifth amendments that were discussed in this video were broken down to an understandable level as well as given a lot of background information towards different cases and how these rights came about. It went into talking about the Miranda rights as well as Miranda v. Arizona. This court case “revolutionized the justice system”. Before the Miranda rights, suspects had very few rights and were almost always presumed guilty. Suspects were also not treated as fairly as they are now with the Miranda rights. A lot of them were beaten and abused until they gave up a confession. With these Miranda rights it presents the option of not complying with any of the questions that are asked therefore they cannot use any self-incriminating statements that were made before the arrest against the suspect. After the suspect has been read their Miranda rights and has been informed of that anything they do or say can and will be used against them in court is when their self-incriminating actions or statements can be used against them in the court of law. sparks123
ReplyDeleteThe fourth and fifth amendment was very well discussed in this video they also used the sixth amendment as well witch is included in the Miranda rights. Elite123
DeleteI think they were really informative in this video about the 4th, 5th, amendment, I think they could have discussed the 6th amendment a bit more. I think the Miranda rights are a great thing to have to help protect the people in our country.
DeleteGRUNT123
Enforcing better training is a great way to think about it. Enforcing better training for the reading of rights and containing evidence. The big key is sticking to that same trained program even after training is over. Just because you were taught to do something a certain way does not mean you will stick to it each and every time that you run into a situation as such. Yet if you follow the rules and procedures and do it right each time. It will be a bit harder to mess up than it would be if you started off on the wrong foot to begin with. Forensics123
DeleteI agree the fourth and fifth amendment was very well explained in this video. Could be another source that is used in our term paper for the semester, if you chose that specific topic. "You have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney if you can not afford an attorney.. one will be appointed to you." Forensics123
DeleteThe video talks more in depth about what the Fourth and Fifth Amendments really mean. Before the Supreme Court decision on Miranda v. Arizona the police were basically like Dirty Harry, busting criminals heads to get some information or to get a confession. The ruling of the Miranda case made it so that the criminals knew their rights when they were being arrested and that they had the freedom to have their attorney, have whatever they say be used against them in a court of law, and to say nothing at all if they so choose. The court case changed how some police officers interrogated a suspect. Instead of basically beating the answers out of someone they had to rely on words and trickery to have the suspect trip over their own lies to find the truth or give a certain piece of information that they didn’t want to share that helps the case. Birdman123
ReplyDeleteThis video was very long it was interesting at some points but others it was hard for me to pay attention and at sometimes it was hard to follow. The documentary that Kim Burns created was very intense it showed how the police have a lot of power and it did show racist profiling and they falsely convicted five people for a rape charge. Salaam spent 7 years in prison until his case was overturn. Salaam was told that they would loose the case , and they wanted him to confuses to something he didn't do so he could get the least charge possible. He had a opportunity to say something before he was sentenced and he used a poem to express what he was thinking. On his twenty first birthday they sent him to the adult prison. When he was in prison he practiced his martial arts and he thought he would have to use it to defend him self. He talks about Donald Trumps ad that he bought he said that it gave birth to a individual who wrote that the oldest one should be hanged from a tree in central park he was never interviewed once but there where all these story's going around about them. Elite123
ReplyDeleteI pastesd this on the wrong section Elite123
DeleteThis video was short and simple it was straight to the point although she did talk pretty fast I had to rewind it a few times to understand her hits on the fourth and fifth and sixth amendment we have spent a lot of time in class on these topics so I am pretty confident about my knowledge on these amendments Before the Miranda V Arizona case criminals/suspects where given very little rights the Miranda Warning gave them a lot of rights they did not have before. The suspect was not given his rights witch was the building blocks to the Miranda V Arizona case. A lot of times before this case it was up to them to know there rights no one read it to them. It was stated that the officer who arrests the suspect/criminal will read there rights to them and if they don't the whole case could be thrown out. Elite123
DeleteThis video did a good job discussing the fourth and fifth amendments and used cases involving them as support. These cases were extremely important to the justice system as we know it today and it is important to understand why things like the Miranda Rights are so critical to have. The video also highlighted that because of historical cases such as Miranda Vs. Arizona suspects in criminal cases have more protection than the previously did. A confession can no longer be beat out of them, and they cannot be tricked or conned into confessing. Unfortunately even though the public has been provided these rights a good portion of the public does not fully understand them or take advantage of them which leads to further problems. Acquainted123
ReplyDeleteIt seems that a lot of people really are still blind to there 5th and 6th amendment rights. Now that confessions cant be conned out of people I think it makes the cases a lot more fair. When someone is interrogated without a lawyer present they can sometimes be tricked into saying things that they don't mean to. I think Miranda rights leveled out the playing field for everyone. gabegun123
DeleteThis video about Miranda v. Arizona was informative, before this decision, suspects were given few rights and mostly convicted guilty. Now police have to clearly give the rights to the accused. The Miranda rights protect citizens from saying to much. I personal like that police have have give the Miranda rights, sometimes when police have arrested someone they could use anything they say against that person, so if the person is not in the wrong that person could say a lot of the wrong things to make them seem like they are guilty. Some people think that criminals get to much lead way now because of the Miranda rights and I can see where one would think that. Overall I liked this video and thought it was very informative.
ReplyDeleteGRTUNT123
This video discussed how Miranda rights came to be and also how they have helped officers in modern times. Before Miranda rights officers did not have to inform people why they were being arrested and also did not have to inform people of there 5th and 6th amendment rights. This led to problems because negligence is not a criminal act. If an individual is negligent of there amendment rights than they are unaware of how they can be affected by the things they say. With the Miranda rights being in effect criminals are now informed of there rights, in which case things they do and say can now be evidence. This helped both the criminals and the officers. Criminals now knew that they can wait for a attorney before they speak and officers had a new defense. Miranda rights have made a huge impact on the modern day criminal justice system. gabegun123
ReplyDeleteIts definitely a good thing Miranda V Arizona happened. People tend to feel that they still are having their rights infringed upon, I cant imagine what it must have been like before this case happened. Dangkids123
DeleteI agree that the Miranda rights have made a great impact on today's criminal justice system. Criminals can't just walk around thinking they're untouchable. Unless you specifically request an attorney, investigators can continue to question you and the words you say can come back to bite you hard. The bridge you burn today may be the one you need to cross tomorrow. Gators123
DeleteBeing informed of your rights upon arrest is very important. Everyone should be entitled to equal rights. Ernesto Miranda was only brought to the station for questioning yet never told what he had been brought in for. Nor was he ever read his fifth or sixth amendment right. Assuming that a person knows their right yet the arresting officer does not explain the rights that he or she is given. Who is responsible for reading Miranda rights to an arrestee at the time of an arrest? The arresting officer is responsible to do so. "You have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right o an attorney if you can not afford an attorney.. one will be appointed to you." Miranda does not go into affect until an arrest is actually made. Custody can simply mean speaking with an officer out on the street. Custody means you are not allowed to leave at your own free will. Arrest means to deprive a person of his or her liberty in purported to an arrestee procedure of the criminal justice system. During an arrest your Miranda rights are to be read, yet when you are in custody being read your rights is not required. Forensics123
ReplyDeleteEnforcing better training is a great way to think about it. Enforcing better training for the reading of rights and containing evidence. The big key is sticking to that same trained program even after training is over. Just because you were taught to do something a certain way does not mean you will stick to it each and every time that you run into a situation as such. Yet if you follow the rules and procedures and do it right each time. It will be a bit harder to mess up than it would be if you started off on the wrong foot to begin with. Forensics123
ReplyDeleteThis video really helped me better understand the Miranda rights, and what had to happen before Miranda rights came in to play. Before Miranda V Arizona the accused had very little to no rights at all. You were automatically presumed guilty, and sometimes even beaten for no reason at all. This all changed in 1966 when Ernesto Miranda appealed his case to the supreme court. The reason for this was because Ernesto was not read his rights at the time of arrest. What he told the Court was he didn't confess voluntarily, and that he was unaware of his 5th amendment rights. Which is the right to refuse to answer a self incriminating question. Dangkids123
ReplyDeleteIt is a good informative video on how the Miranda got started and the background information with it. Knowing that you can convict yourself if asked directly and how that has changed and such evidence can be dismissed due to rights being exercised. wreked123
DeleteThe fact that most people don't know there basic rights along with any other rights that could convict them if they didn't know was crap at the time. The case that started this was not the best being a rape case and the guy never got arrested since he said he wasn't read his rights. Many cases to follow along with that one that help strengthen the accused rights and make the police look more professional instead of the stuff that could get away in court now cant because of rights being exercised. wreked123
ReplyDeleteThis video was discussing the case between Ernesto Miranda and the State of Arizona. In this case, Miranda was arrested due to evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen year old woman. Miranda was never notified that he had a right to counsel and ended up confessing without a lawyer being present. Miranda was eventually convicted of the kidnap and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years. The Arizona Supreme Court would not hear the case as Miranda had never requested a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteToday our Miranda rights must be read to us prior to any kind of questioning that is done. However, if the person being questioned either does not understand the rights or does not acknowledge that they understand the rights, the case gets a little more tricky. If there is sufficient evidence that a crime did occur, the case is able to push on and the perpetrator may still end up being locked up. Gators123