Miranda v. Arizona case
how is the 14th amendment implicated in this case? how did the court go beyond its usual practice in coming to a decision?
We'll be glad to critique your answers.
excuse me?
We don't do homework.
However, if you post your answers, we'll be glad to comment on them.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Miranda+v.+Arizona+14th+amendment&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIE_en
As Ms. Sue said, if you post your answers, we will comment.
oh ok.
well
I think it implemented the 14th amendemnt by creating the 'miranda warning' where that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you and the right to know you have the right to an attourney.
but i'm nnot sure on how the court went beyond its USUAL practices.
It implemented the Fifth Amendment about right not to incriminate oneself. The court went beyond its usual practices by being proactive and telling the suspect specifically about his/her rights.
specifically what does 'incriminating' mean?
From Dictionary.com:
2. to involve in an accusation; cause to be or appear to be guilty; implicate: His testimony incriminated his friend. He feared incriminating himself if he answered.
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution was implicated in relation to the defendant's right against self-incrimination and the guarantee of due process.
The 14th Amendment states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This amendment includes the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which ensures that legal procedures are followed in criminal cases to protect individual rights.
The court went beyond its usual practice in coming to a decision in Miranda v. Arizona because it established the famous "Miranda rights," also known as Miranda warnings or Miranda rule. These rights are a set of warnings that must be given by law enforcement to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated.
The court's decision in this case was based on the principle that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination required law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before questioning them. This decision created a new procedural safeguard that ensured suspects were aware of their rights, specifically the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning.
By establishing these rights, the court went beyond its usual practice and set a new standard for police procedures during interrogations. This was done to ensure that individuals in police custody are aware of their constitutional rights and can exercise them if they choose to do so. The court's decision aimed to protect the principles of due process and prevent coerced confessions or self-incrimination.