revise my paper

Miranda and Brown (since this assignment covers both)

Amy Hoekwater

Grand Canyon University - JUS 435

May 4th 2018

Title

two cases had a great impact in dictating the conduct of police officers in gathering evidence for a case against a suspect and had a lot of impact in defining due process. Brown v. Mississippi (italics) case is a case that involved two individuals. Convicted of murder They had pleaded not guilty in the initial trials but were later found guilty based on confessions they made self-incriminating themselves (Emanuel, 2009). Other than the confession they had made, there was no further evidence to prove that the two had committed the murder crime. However, the admissibility of the evidence, in this case, was challenged based on the fact that the two suspects in the case had been coerced into confessing after being tortured physically. The case aimed at answering the question whether brutality, as well as violence, is consistent with the fourteenth amendment of the constitution in the United States.

Miranda v. Arizona (italics) involved 4 cases where the defendants in the case confessed to being guilty of the crimes they were being accused of after they were subjected to various techniques of interrogation and while they were being interrogated their fifth amendment rights that is the Miranda rights which informed a suspect that they had a right not to self-incriminate themselves during interrogation were not read to them Rephrase, run on. What do you mean it was (4) cases? (Meter, 2007). This case answered the question on whether the Fifth Amendment rights protected a suspect against self-incrimination during interrogation.

Impact on police work

These two cases helped in clearly defining the due process in police work in two different ways will be discussed below. Expound

Brown v. Mississippi

The courts ruled that the decision that had been made by the trial courts was wrong since it failed to take into consideration the incompetent circumstances under which the evidence was collected from the suspects (Emanuel, 2009). The court, therefore, overruled the decision that had been made by the trial court and ruled that the use of physical torture on suspects violated the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. This was one of the very first cases that put in place restrictive measures in criminal justice procedures. It helped to put in place a jurisdiction that regulated procedures of the criminal law when they violated the provision of the due process provided by the constitution. This case restricted the ways allowable to law enforcers in obtaining confessions from suspects by ruling out the use physical torture as a means of forcing the criminal suspect to confess.

Miranda v. Arizona

The ruling of the court, in this case, was that the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution applied to individuals in all instances and setting where their freedom was curtailed by law enforcers and that a suspect should not be compelled into self-incriminating themselves (Meter, 2007). The ruling of this case gave rise to the Miranda rights which are supposed to be read to the suspects during arrest and interrogation to ensure that they are aware that they have a right not to say anything that can self-incriminate them. The court provided that a suspect must be warned of these rights before any questioning to ensure that the suspect has a right to resists the pressure of saying anything that would act as evidence during questioning. This case helped to further define the due process for law enforcers by making sure that suspects were well informed of their rights and therefore avoiding situations where they would be compelling to confessing against themselves.

Conclusion BOLD

The impact of the two cases discussed above can in general be summed up into the fact that they uphold the rights of the suspect in the criminal justice process and further helped to regulate the behaviour of the police in terms of the manner in which the handle suspect and ways used to gather evidence to be used in court (Inbau, 2004). They are landmark cases which helped to make sure suspects did not undergo any form of coercion when in police custody and during interrogation. The two cases also helped to regulate police behavior and further reinforce the provision of due process to help in ensuring that the police did not illegal ways of gathering evidence or handle the suspects unethically while in custody in the name of gaining evidence.

These two cases have made a great impact in ensuring sobriety in criminal justice proceedings by ensuring that provision of due process are clear and that they are followed. Rephrase, a bit confusing By overturning the decisions of the former cases which had been made based incompetent evidence, the Supreme Court helped define clear terms of what kind of evidence is considered as admissible in a court of law and which is not. Police have been able to refrain from evidence gathering procedures which go against the due process since at the end of all the evidence will be considered null and void (Inbau, 2004). Thanks to these two cases due process in law enforcement was reinforced and has ever since been adhered to by the police to ensure legality and ethicality of the evidence they presented to a court.

References

Emanuel, S. (2009). Criminal procedure. Austin New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Aspen.

Inbau, F. (2004). Criminal interrogation and confessions. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Meter, L. (2007). Miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused. New York: Chelsea House.

Good start Amy. I noted some things throughout your paper. Just be cognizant of grammar and keep your sentences simple.

Good work so far.

Prof. Lee