Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark ruling that took place I the supreme court of the united states of America.

On March 13, the year 1963, Ernesto Miranda got arrested by the police after they were evidence that linked him with the kidnap and rape of an 18-year-old woman. After the interrogation was done on him by the police after two hours,  Miranda decided to sign a confession to the rape charges stating that he was not coerced to make the confessions and that the statements can be used to try him in the law court. However, at the time, he was not told of any right that he had on the council (Miranda v. Arizona, 384).  He was therefore given a form to write the confession that he had given orally and he was not advised to remain silent nor whether the statements he stated would be used against him.  When the prosecutor gave Miranda a written confession as evidence, the lawyer who was appointed in the court, Avin Moore, objected these facts as the confessions were not voluntary and therefore should be excluded.  However, the objection was overruled by the judge, and Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnap. His sentencing took a minimum of twenty and a maximum of thirty years in prison.

The ruling was a five to four majority in favor of holding inculpable statementsodn by the victim before police questioning (Graham Jr, 59). It must also be proved that the defendant understood the rights but waved them as well.

This ruling has had a massive impact on law enforcement practices in the United States. This case has had a massive impact on law enforcement procedures through the US as it led to the formation of the Miranda right. This is part of the routine procedures fo the police for them to ensure that the suspects are informed of their rights.

Protecting the rights of people accused of a crime is important. This is because they are innocent unless they can be proven to be guilty.

The effect of this case has been positive. Now people know that  they have the right to be silent as the things that they say will be used against them in the court of law.

Works cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

Graham Jr, Kenneth W. “What is Custodial Interrogation: California’s Anticipatory Application of Miranda v. Arizona.” UCLA L. Rev. 14 (1966): 59.