Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright were two huge cases in the 1960's. Answer the following discussion questions.
1). What is your position of the Miranda warnings? Does this help or hinder police law enforcement
officials?
2). In assessing Gideon v. Wainwright, what does "the Assistance of Counsel" mean? In what sense was Gideon permitted to have the "Assistance of Counsel"? In what sense was he denied it?
Weekly discussions and responses mixed with perplexing issues, ideas, and insight from the classroom of Mr. Pyle
Miranda Warnings are a good thing to have in place. Our judicial system is expected to treat everyone equally, that would include every suspect or criminal knowing his or her rights to try to defend their selves, just as our judges defend our society from these (potential) criminals. I, with shame, am not ready to get arrested because I don't know all my rights as a citizen. And weather I am guilty or not, I would want my rights read to me and repeated to me for clarification. It's only fair.
ReplyDeleteIt sucks that Gideon was denied a lawyer when the Constitution clearly states that he had the right to one. Just as Justice Black stated, " lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries." Gideon was permitted to have "assistance of counsel" only to the extent to where he could represent himself, which is totally unfair. Unfair because he was semi-literate, could not afford a lawyer of his own, and he didn't even know what a lawyer was suppose to do for him. Gideon, of course, should have had a lawyer appointed to him to help him out in his trial, but the judge said no, and that "no" was a violation of Gideon's constitutional right.
I agree Miranda rights provide people the chance to not self incriminate and give a fair trial
DeleteI believe the Miranda Warnings allow the “suspects” to be advised of their rights. They give individuals the rights they have available. This helps the police law enforcement officials because that way it will lessen law suits filed. Miranda Warning helps them not get in trouble or let someone go because of the misunderstanding. In Gideon v. Wainwright the “Assistance of Counsel” lets individuals with less economic opportunities have the chance to be represented. Gideon was permitted because he didn’t have the capability of doing it himself. He wasn’t allowed because of the offenses he had committed.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Miranda warnings are a much neutral this to have in our justice system. They are useful in the sense that they are essential to inform of the rights of an arrested individual, they help uphold the "innocent until proven guilty." However, they can hinder the police because if they are not read, the suspect can walk away freely even if he was indeed guilty. Also, they allow a criminal to know that he is free to never speak something against himself until court where he is left to the hands of the jury, where there is a chance he'll be deemed not guilty.
ReplyDeleteFor Gideon v. Wainwrihgt, the Assistance for Counsel refers tot he right to an attorney to be provided for a suspect in the case that he is not able to hire one. The govt would then appoint a willing lawyer to take upon representation of the individual. The only sense that he was permitted this assistance was that he was able to represent himself in the hopes of having a fair trial as spelled by the Constitution. However, I much strongly believed he was denied such assistance because he was not knowledgeable of law in a any way. Gideon was inept so to speak in defending himself (not to mention how poorly he did). Thus, the fairness of the trial greatly tilted against him
I agree with you. Miranda Warnings are tricky! As for the Gideon case, i also agree with you. Gideon wasn't knowledgeable much about the law, BUT he knew he was being "played" with. It was a good thing that he tried, even though he failed, to represent himself in court. Yes, he did a horrible job, but he did bring attention the injustice he was put through. That attention helped his case and he was able to be given what he was fighting for.
DeleteThe Miranda Warnings on its own is a great thing. Yes, those who already know their rights will keep quiet but I believe the choice of whether one is guilty and or not guilty should not be depended on the verbal confession of the accused. Law Enforcement officials should have enough supporting evidence to convict someone without a verbal confession.
DeleteDiego makes a good point in his position on the Miranda warnings but, we must take into consideration the state the accused may be in when arrested, as far as drunk, nervous, on drugs, etc. If he/she admits to a crime or confesses to something, it's possible that they are just saying what the police want to hear.
DeleteI agree with Diego, the negative point of the Miranda rights is that if not read actual criminals can be released. However, it is successful for the main reason that it informs citizens of their rights.
DeleteI believe that the miranda warnings are both good and bad, there good because they allow innocent people from being accused as the person who committed the crime, however the bad thing is the bad guys can use those warnings to appear not guilty of the crime. As for "the Assistance of the Council," I believe the court was right in doing what they did, they appointed Gideon a lawyer, someone who can represent Gideon, however the lawyer they appoint him can be abyone the court wants to appoint to him. He was given a lawyer, what more can he ask for, after beggers can't be choosers, you get what you get and if you don't like it get your own. If the court assigns Gideon a lawyer that Gideon wants, the he will probably choose an expensive one, and the court would have to pay for him, and where does the court get that money, from the taxes we pay the government, the better the lawyer the more it will cost, which means a higher tax on peopl who have nothing to do with the case.
ReplyDeleteI disagree on your belief that "bad guys can use those[Miranda] warnings to appear not guilty of the crime." You have to understand that suspects need fair grounds too if they are going to try to defend their selves, because there is the possibility that they may be innocent. the Judicial system has Miranda Warnings in place to set fair grounds for both the law and the law-breaker, and even if the guy is guilty, he'd still end up guilty when you run a multiple scenarios through your head.
DeleteI think miranda is a good thing we have because that way no one uses the "I don't know my rights", some people don't know their rights so having the police say it is only fair for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe"assistance of counsel" means that a person has the right to have an attorney provided to him if they are not able to pay for it. In his case it does suck for him that he represented for him because well he did a horrible job at it. However he was denied a lawyer by the judge which made him defend himself. Even if the person has committed something so bad why should they be denied a lawyer, if we were in their shoes we would say it was our right to have or be appointed one.
I agree with the Miranda rights. They are use to be fair for everyone. Just like Gideon case, Gideon had the right to an attorney even if he couldn't afford one. To be fair, That becomes a very huge disadvantage to Gideon since he had to represent himself and couldn't be provided a attorney to help him.
DeleteI agree because once the police rad the rights to the individual then he/she can no longer use the "I don't know my rights" against the court. Therefore, the Miranda rights let every suspect know of what their rights are when arrested.
DeleteThe Miranda rights is a good thing. Since some people aren't aware of the Miranda being told by the police under their arrest. and it's fair for everyone.
ReplyDeleteAssistance of Counsel means that a person have the right to have an attorney present by the individual. If the individual cannot afford one. In Gideon case, He had to represent himself since he couldn't afford a lawyer and the court refuse to provide him one under the sixth amendment. Also, They denied him due to multiple counts of burglary. But, The individual still has the right to a attorney even if he can't afford one.
I agree the Miranda rights treats everyone fairly by letting them understand their rights. Gideon had the right to represent himself but by changing the law to provide lawyers for those who cannot afford them made it more fair because those who cannot afford one are almost guaranteed to lose in court.
DeleteI agree that the Miranda warnings help people that are not aware of their rights and that an individual has the right of an attorney even if they can't afford one.
DeleteI believe that Miranda Rights are not helpful & sort of helpful. When they don't say them to someone that person will most likely give out useful information & make it easier to be proven guilty but when it comes down to it the information cant be used. Everyone should have the choice if they want to say something or not. Which regardless if they're told Miranda Rights or not the can say what they want or choose not to say it, it'll just be used in different ways.
ReplyDelete"Assistance of counsel" Means someone who cant afford a lawyer will be appointed one. He could not afford a lawyer on his own nor was he appointed one. They said they "did not have to pay for a poor person's legal defense".
I believe having your Miranda rights read to you is fair because it allows you to understand your rights and defend yourself properly from incrimination. With the system, someone could be tricked into confessing and therefore not having a proper trial even if they are not guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe assistance of counsel means that suspects have a right to a lawyer. Gideon had the “assistance of a counsel” in that he was able to represent himself even though he could not afford a lawyer however; he was also denied it because he was semi-literate and had no experience with law. It was almost as if he was set up to fail and that is unfair. That is why lawyer are provided to suspects because they are a necessity when in court.
I agree with you, Miranda is a good thing it gives the individual a fair trial without any kind of self incrimination with out their consent.
DeleteI agree with Stephanie, there have been many cases where people have been tricked into incrimination, it is vital for someone to be entitled to a lawyer to prevent these situations.
DeleteI agree because having the Miranda rights read provides equality for all people and they know what their rights are. The innocent are given a chance to prove their innocence.
DeleteMiranda is a good thing because it helps citizens know their rights. This way there will be no self incrimination without them knowing and it will be a fair trial. The assistance of council is the right to have an attorney present by the individual even when they cannot afford one. Gideon's case makes sure it enforces that everyone has the right to an attorney. Including the poor and the ones with criminal records.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on why the Miranda rights are good. It is for a better understanding and to let people know their rights cause most people don't.
DeleteI agree with you on the Miranda rights you have a good point.
Deleteyeah but think about the people that it may get "out the hook" if they are not read. Also I know that self incrimination is a good thing the accused but think about it, he/she could speak his of what happened if he/she was innocent.
DeleteThe Miranda warnings are necessary because they allow individuals to know of their rights this can be good and bad. Good because it places everyone on the same level. It treats everyone equally. Bad because it silences the person and the crime might never be resolved. It is also bad because if the person is not told their rights the person, by law, has to be set free even if they committed the crime and confessed to it. The Miranda Rights are tricky and if they're not put into practice well, it can severely damage many people.
ReplyDelete"Assistance of the counsel" simply means the right of being provided a lawyer when one can't be afforded. In Gideon's case, it was unfortunate and unconstitutional. A person's monetary status should not decide whether you get the assistance of a lawyer or not. Gideon was aware of this injustice and "stuck it to the man" by raising his voice against injustice. He won! His case goes to show that it doesn't matter if you are a hobo living inside a box, you still have the right to be given a lawyer if can't pay for one. It is only fair.
I believe that the Miranda rights are good and also bad. Good, because it allows everyone to know their rights and understand them more when using them during court cases. It also bad because if the laws aren't being read the suspect can be let go only because the Miranda rights weren't being as followed in the court case. Which gives the suspect who did an awful crime, free and do some more crimes. Assistance of counsel meant that the person can represent himself without a lawyer. In this case, the Gideon's case. He could afford a lawyer so he represented himself and defended himself. However, he didn't had the capability to represent himself and the power to stick up for himself because at that time that's all he could afford, he got denied.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the Miranda rights can be bad, if someone where to forget to read them to the person then that person could go free even if they confessed everything and might be guilty.
DeleteThe Miranda rights were given to us now thanks to Miranda v. Arizona. I believe this was a good thing for both victims about to be arrest and the police officer's reputation. If a police officer has not given a verbal Miranda warning he can be counted accountable for not giving those in their arrest any sort of personal right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Another advantage to these rights is if one is not law informed they could possibly spill to much information that can be used against them if the we did not have our Miranda rights.
ReplyDeleteIn Gideon v. Wainwright we were given the right to "the Assistance of Counsel" which many ponder what exactly that means. The right to "the Assistance of Counsel" means an attorney will be provided to those who are financially well to afford an attorney. everyone should have a fair trail which also includes that those defending themselves should have an attorney who is law informed to support them. Some individuals are not capable or not well informed to defend themselves. Gideon was not given that opportunity to have an attorney defend him and for that, he was sentence to prison. The outcome could have been different if he was given an attorney. like they saying said "Attorneys are not a luxury it's a necessity."
I agree with you on police officers being held accountable for reading the Miranda Warnings. It is part of their duty now. I also agree that it can give an advantage to those who are not guilty of a crime because if they are not informed of this and are not aware of the situations, they could get themselves in trouble.
DeleteAs for Gideon v. Wainwright I completely agree that individuals are not able to fend for themselves in court. Only if they were knowledgeable in law, but then again that is who lawyers are. It is a good point to bring that quote of attorneys being a necessity because they truly are. If one is to have a fair trial as dictated by the Constitution, then lawyers should be available to those who require one.
I believe that the Miranda rights are good. Good, because it allows everyone to know their rights and understand them more when using them during court cases. Assistance of counsel meant that the person can represent himself without a lawyer. In this case, the Gideon's case. He could afford a lawyer so he represented himself and defended himself. since , he didn't had the capability to represent himself and the power to stick up for himself because at that time that's all he could afford, he got denied. Since he was poor the supreme court agreed with him and told him that everyone has the right to defend them self and that everyone is innocent until proven guilty
ReplyDeleteI agree with you yarely that the miranda rights are good because it does allow us to know our rights and understand them when we use them or need them.
DeleteI believe the Miranda Warnings serve as a way to level the playing field for the suspect and the law. The suspect can defend themselves from a crime that the suspect might not have done. It also can be a disadvantage to the police because the suspect is aware that anything he says can work against him thus limiting the information the police can have towards solving a particular problem.
ReplyDeleteIn Gideon V.Wainwright "Assistance of Counsel" means that the defendant has the right to be given a lawyer even if he cannot afford one. Gideon was denied one due to the fact that he did not commit a capital offense.
I agree with your points on the Miranda Rights. It can be a disadvantage because they know that if they say anything or nothing at all it can affect their case.
DeleteI totally agree with you. Police officers have to always remember to read the miranda rights to their suspect or else they get chewed by their supervisors. These two cases not only help the innocent but also known right criminals.
DeleteI still don't know where I stand in the Miranda rights; that said, I do like that they are read because it makes us, the people, equal. What I don't like about them is the fact that anything said before hand is not going to used against the accused,as well that the chances of them being let go is greater if not a absolute. In conclusion the Miranda rights do have good points but in some cases they can only help the accused more than the own lawyer and that to me is bad for police officials.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Gideon V. Wainwright we can say that the officials were violating his rights because of the fact that he was denied a lawyer. he was poor and had a poor education if any he manage to study law and appeal but if he would had, had a lawyer to begin with he probably wouldn't had wind in jail in the first place.
I think the Miranda Rights can be good in the way of letting suspects know their rights. Although Miranda Rights can be bad in the way that if they are not read by the police anything they say can't be used against them at court and they are let go.
ReplyDelete"Assistance of Counsel" means that an attorney can be provided to those who can't afford one financially. However, in Gideons case he was denied because he wasn't charged with a capital offense. In the state of Florida the only time a court can appoint counsel to defend is when a person is charged with a capital offense.
I believe that the Court case of Miranda vs Arizona gave potential suspects more protection from the Criminal Justice System. The case established that a police officer must tell the suspect his rights, now known as the "Miranda Rights", and if the officer did not do so than anything the person said could not be admissible in court and in some cases the only evidence they had to indict he person was his statement but since the officer did not tell them their rights, they walk free of charged. Most officer forget this like common people forget car keys or something important, and most criminals that did not get charged because they didnt know their rights , get arrested again but leaving many victims since then.
ReplyDeleteJust like Miranda, the court case of Gideon Vs Wainwright gives criminals the right to have a "Assistance of Counsel" meaning to have a attorney. And how do they pay for an attorney when they dont have anything? It comes from taxpayers pockets and it is stupid but necessary. I know it helps both the innocent and the criminal, but thats the law and the law must be followed.
I agree with having Miranda Warnings. I believe that it is just to have the rights read because the person is aware of his or her Constitutuinal rights and they are able to do what they have in their power to do. It gives people a right to defend themselves and also can protect those who are innocent. However there is an issue and that is that if an official doesn't read the miranda rights then the suspect can go free even if he or she is clearly guilty. The good thing is that an innocent person cannot be pressured to plead guilty because they are informed of their rights.
ReplyDeleteThe assistance of counsel means that a person has a right to be appointed a defendant/lawyer/representative in order to defend him or her despite the person's background. Initially Gideon was denied a lawyer because he couldn't afford one. However, Gideon was aware of his right to have a lawyer and he studied the constitution more closely finding out that he needed representation. He fought for his right and he represented himself. However, he did very poorly and was still denied a lawyer. But he didn't give up and he wrote to the U.S. supreme court on a pad and they read it and approved him the right to have a lawyer.
I agree with Vivian. The Miranda rights help protect a person whether they are guilty or not. With the Gideon v Wainwright case, Gideon wasn't allowed the opportunity to be appointed a lawyer, so he had to represent himself.
DeleteIn terms of police officers, this hinders them because if the criminal knows this then the suspect will not talk and thus making the police's job that much harder. With Miranda Warnings, I believe each person should be read the warnings after a certain time frame depending on the circumstances. With terrorism I believe all those involved should not be read within a certain time frame. It shouldn't be until after a thorough investigation should a person be read his/her rights. We are not infringing one's rights ,but rather delaying them until we are sure. In assessing Gideon v. Wainwright, the "assistance to council" is provided legal support to a person who can not provide for themselves. Gideon was granted legal counsel in a sense that a public defender was assigned to him. However, he was a denied in a sense that only certain lawyers could defend him, not guaranteeing him a "good" lawyer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the Miranda Rights providing trouble for law enforcers. And I also agree that the rights should be read after a certain time. This way, the can get information from the suspect, such as they did in the whole Boston Marathon Bombing situation.
DeleteI agree if the criminal knows that he has the right to no say a word it would be harder to the police to show that he guilty.
DeleteI agree with john that the suspect can remain silent if one decided to. However, would you consider Miranda Warnings as being a necessary evil? Do you think that Miranda should be circumstantial?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Miranda rights are good for each citizen to have however it does not help law enforcement officials but rather hinder them due to the fact that they must inform the citizens of their rights. This gives more powers to the citizens
ReplyDeleteIn the gideon case, he was supposed to be appointed a lawyer to represent him in court. However the judge denied Gideon his right of representation which infringed his sixth amendment rights
I agree with you about the Miranda Rights. The citizen ends up having more power when these rights are read to them, causing them to in a way have an advantage. In the cause of Gideon it was unfair.
DeleteI agree with john and once a criminal knows he can be silent until an attorney is present, he will likely give up no information regardless of the circumstance so this makes the prosecution process that much more difficult
ReplyDeleteI believe the Miranda case was a necessary court case in the Supreme Court. It provides everyone with an equal and fair trial in court, no matter what the magnitude of the crime is. The Miranda Rights can be both advantageous and disadvantageous for law enforcers. Such as in the Boston Marathon Bombing case, where officers did not read the suspect him the Miranda Rights right away. They were able to get information out of him prior to the reading. But after the reading of his rights, he kept his mouth shut. Also, if officers don't read it for some sort of reason, suspects can use that to get out of a crime. But I do believe the Miranda rights are necessary to have.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Gideon v Wainright, the assistance of counsel means that a person is granted a lawyer in the situation that the defendent can't afford one. In this specific case, the judge denied for the defendant to have a representative, which violated the sixth amendment
I completely agree with Derek on the Miranda case being necessary, especially using the Boston Marathon Bombing case as a perfect example of how useful and how important the Miranda Rights are.
DeleteI gree with you the Miranda case is necessary.
DeleteThe Miranda Warnings are helpful to the citizens allowing them to understand what sorts of rights they have. The warnings hinder police officials by the way that it gives them more responsibility. If a police officer at some moment forgets to read the warning to the person then it allows that person to be set free regardless if they are innocent or guilty. In the case of Gideon v Wainwright, Assistance to Counsel meant that a person could be appointed a lawyer. Gideon was able to represent himself in the court, but was denied the assistance to counsel because the court did not appoint him a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with nancy that Miranda however the citizen may not understand there rights due to a language barrier or disability such as being deaf. In the Gideon v. Wainwright case Gideon was Denied assistance from the council and has change today's law and court cases.
DeleteI agree with Nancy that the Miranda Rights help oeut citizens. They do howerver make the work for police officials very difficult. I disagree with her that he did not have one appointed to him because they did not have to yes it is their right as a citizen but in the constitution it does not state that they have to have one only that they have the right to an atorney.
DeleteIn my opinion Miranda Rights are a good thing to have in place. First, when the Miranda Rights are read, it ensures that the citizens are all equal. Second, it lets all the citizens know their rights and what they are facing. But then I also think that it hinders the law enforcers because the citizens have the power to not say anything.
ReplyDeleteThe Assistance of Counsel means that individuals are allowed the right of someone to defend/represent them. However, in Gideon v. Wainwright, he was denied this right because of the offenses he committed, therefore, abusing his 6th amendment right. He was only permitted to the point of representing himself, and that was unfair, because he was not fully aware and educated of his rights, he was unequal to every other citizen.
While many criminals are allowed a "free pass" when their Miranda rights are not read to them, it is an essential part of a fair and just conviction. We, as citizens, are expected to follow the law and refrain from criminal acts. We have a list of "do's" and "don't's" that, if violated, result in punishment. Likewise, our government, who is comprised of our peers, should have a set procedure, that when violated results in some sort of punishment. It does hinder police and may set them back but at the same time, it serves as a motivator because there is that lurking danger. Also, it ensures that the American citizens are aware of their rights.
ReplyDeleteIn the Gideon v. Wainwright case, the "assistance of counsel" meant that, as a defendant, he was entitled to have someone representing him. He was given an attorney, therefore permitting his "assistance of counsel". However, when an attorney is provided for a defendant, the defendant is not able to have his choice of his representation. allowing the possibility of a predetermined ruling.
I would have to agree when cops forget to say the Miranda rights criminals can just say that even with enough evidence to put them behind bars that is a large problem but necessary. Same with the representation of counsel for and accused to have an equal chance to defend oneselfs.
DeleteMiranda Rights are acceptable at times but others times it can lead to a difficult situation for the law to act upon and accused individual.
ReplyDeleteThe Assistance of Counsel is something that helped balance Mirada Rights if it happens to fail and and innocent it put to trial and has to economic power to help find represention while infront of the court.
I agree with victor because they both are good for an individuals right and they balance each other out. But in some cases they become irrelevant and aren't really useful.
DeleteI believe that the Miranda warning help the person being accused because it tell him his rights but also hinders the law because if its not told them the person accused can walk away freely. The assistance of counsel means that the person being accused has the right to have an attorney provided if they cannot afford one. Gideon was not given a lawyer which went against the sixth amendment but instead he represented himself because he could not afford one.
ReplyDeleteagree with Alvaro the law is at risk of being unable to fulfill their job for the simple fact many Americans won't own up to the crime committed. Also who wouldn't want representation from a educated counsel.
DeleteThe Miranda warning hinders police law enforcements because although there might be some evidence against a person, unless the person admits to it, he/she is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, the law pretty much does as it pleases. "Assistance of counsel" means that a person has the right to have an attorney provided to him if they are not able to pay for it. Since Gideon didn't have money he wasn't allowed to have representation. That caused for him to represent himself, that eventually made him win his case.
ReplyDeleteI belived that the Miranda warning are a good thing and help the police do their work better. The Miranda warning are good because "suspects" know their rights and is all on their own hands to say and do what they want. The assistance of cunsel means that a "suspect" that is accused for a crime have the right to have an attorney that can defend him, and if that person can't afford one he/her must be provided with one. Gideon had the opportunity of defend himself but without the advice of a professional that has knowledge on the laws of the country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Miranda rights should be read however as many people already know the Miranda due to tv shows and media I believe that Miranda shouldnt be read always because in sometimes the government is giving people such as illegal immigrants rights they never had because they aren't a legal US citizen. Miranda was put in place to remind citizens there rights not to free them from cases that they are clearly guilty of. Gideon case was brings up an issue that the government over looked and that should have addressed before his case was brought up to the court by raising taxes to provide lawyers for those citizens that can' t afford one even though they are not the best lawyer the citizen has a better chance at winning if they are in educated however cases with provided lawyers are most likely loses but due to Gideon making the court realize that a lawyer should be provided has affected today's justice system greatly .
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the Miranda rights, but I think they should be red at all times. Some people might act stupid and say they didn't know their rights because there weren't read or something like that
DeleteI agree with you on how illegal immigrants shouldn't be read rights they don't have, especially when the evidence clearly points towards them.
DeleteMiranda rights should e read to all that reside in america. You may ask why, well let's look at this with our famous saying the land of the free insist that no one should be denied Miranda rights because America is a free country.
ReplyDeleteThe Gideon case I feel as though although he was uneducated his rights shouldn't had been violated because he's an american citizen like the rest of us so just because he was poor that shouldn't hinder his ability to be represented.
I agree with the Miranda rights being read before they arrest someone. It is best to do so, so that there won't be any problems with the person arrested. Maybe saying excuses saying that he/she did not know their rights. Just to play it safe, read the rights. With the Gideon case I also agree. Everyone should have an attorney because everyone is "created equal". Would be fair to the ones that can't afforded one.
ReplyDeleteI can easily agree with you since you basically had the same idea that I wrote for my response. It is important that one would always maintain their rights even when they have caused a felony in America.
DeleteI agree completly with your views on the miranda rights. It's better to be safe than sorry, especially when it has to do with the justice system. I also agrre with you when we are discussing the gideon case. Evrryone should be able to have a n attorney jo matter what their situation is at the time.
DeleteI agree with ivan everyone is created equal and therefore should have the same rights on whatever the situation is
DeleteI agree with the miranda rights. That they should be read before they arrest anyone, that way the person knows there rights and what they can do. Being told your rights, makes the situation a bit more calmful to someone because you are given the chance to know your rights and what you are able to do and what you are not able to do. i also agree with the gideon case because i believe that everyone should have an attorney when being trial because we should all be treated equally and we should have a say in the court . it is not fair if someone is poor and cant afford it, everyone deserves to have an attorney .
ReplyDeleteI believe the Miranda warnings are necessary and they help the police laws enforcement officials. If the Officials know how to use the Miranda Rights properly and not abuse it then yes it should be strictly enforce. Everyone should be granted the Miranda Rights, however if a policeman forgets to say it then that is brought upon himself or herself and they should be disciplined to a certain extent so it doesn't happen again. In the Gideon v. Wainwright case , "the Assistance of Counsel" means that everyone should have the chance to have an attorney, rich or poor. He tried this case because he had no other chance of getting out of jail. He actually did do the crime but he was using "the Assistance of Counsel" to help him out and it turned out to be useful to others that are poor as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that though the Miranda rights should be given but if they aren't the suspect shouldn't be let go, but only if there is substantial evidence proving that the accused is guilty, otherwise the Miranda rights are preferred but not required in my personal opinion. In the case of Gideon, however, I do believe everyone does have the right to an attorney because in a fair trial, one must have the proper defense to claim their innocence, otherwise the poor would go on without a voice in the courts and the law of our land.
ReplyDeletei agree with David in saying that if the Miranda rights were not given then the suspect should be let go. If they are guilty then they are guilty.
DeleteI do agree with David that Miranda rights should be given although I do disagree with the fact that if they are not read the suspect is free to go even though they are guilty of what has been done. I believe that if there is evidence of the person committing the crime he/she should be arrested regardless of being read their miranda rights of not.
DeleteI believe everyone should should be read Miranda rights however if terrorist harm Americans or an american who commits a terrorist act on america should not be read Miranda rights because they are not Americans if they try to harm their own country. Gideon asked to have a lawyer appointed but was denied because the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense and Gideon was not charged with a capitol offense.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michael because Gideon was not charged with a capitol offense so he could not be granted a lawyer but it still violated the sixth amendment.
DeleteI believe the Miranda warning is useful to inform the rights of an arrested individual. However, they can hinder the police because if it is not read the suspect can walk away freely even if he was guilty. Gideon vs. Wainwrihgt, the Assistance for Counsel refers to the right to an attorney for the suspect when he is not able to hire one. He was allowed to represent himself. Gideon had the opportunity of defend himself but without the advice of a professional.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe the creation of the Miranda rights is fair because it allows people to their rights and can better be protected. However, the Miranda rights can also hinder police law enforcement because if they are not read criminals can escape consequences and imprisonment.
ReplyDeleteBy assistance of the council, Gideon was only able to represent himself. He was denied it in the sense that he had no experience/knowledge of law enforcement and was semi-illiterate.
While I agree that the Miranda rights inform people of their rights, I do not agree that this means hindering police officer. If an officer is doing his job, the rights will be read plus they aren't stupid. they clearly know when it will be best to read the rights if the case involves a high-profile criminal.
DeleteI believe Miranda rights are necessary in our legal system. Citizens, regardless of their offences, must be aware of their rights. Reading the Miranda Rights should not hinder the police officials if used strategically like the recent case with the Boston bomber. In the case of Gideon v Wainwright, the assistance of counsel means that a person is granted a lawyer even if the defendant cannot afford an attorney. In this specific case, the judge denied the defendant representation by an attorney other than himself, which violated the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Genesis that MIranda rights are necessary in our legal system and although they shouldn't hinder the police, i think they still do because people aren't going to incriminate themselves knowing their rightss.
DeleteI think that Miranda rights should be read to everyone regardless of where you are from. If you are on American soil you should have Miranda rights. In Gideon v Wainwright the judge did not give the defendant a lawyer which violated the sixth amendment.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion miranda rights should be read to anyone that does get arrested no matter what the case might be. I believe that no matter if you do get arrested one should not lose their rights and should be aware of them. But for example with the boston bomber since he wasn't read his miranda rights at first it allowed him to talk and give more information to the law enforcement just in case if there was anyone else still out there planning another attack only bad thing is that even with all the information he gave it could not be used against him since no miranda rights were read in the first place but that information could be used against another if captured and was involved with the same bomber. In the Gideon vs. Wainwright case the assistance of counsel meant that a person has the right to be granted a lawyer even if the person can't afford one. Of course the one in need of the lawyer isn't assured the best lawyer but is assured to get one in his/her side. At first Gideon was denied a lawyer because of his economical stance (being poor) but he knew his rights and faught to receive what was his to believe the right to have a representative on his side. Gideon tried to defend him self and be his own lawyer but failed and was put away once again. Eager to receive his rights as written in the Constitution he wrote to the U.S. Supreme court and was granted his wish to receive his rights. Not receiving the right to an attourney is a violation of the 6th Amendment of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteOn Miranda rights it should always be obligatory to read no matter what the cause of the crime is. It would be a shame if one person was not read their rights and be punished with out a fair trail on this nation. Now with Gideon, the assistance of counsel is basically saying you have the right to an attorney even if you can not afford one. When Gideon was tried, he was denied to have a lawyer and went against his sixth amendment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the miranda rights do both hinder and benefit law officals when it is in thecase of being able to accuratly do their jobs. They hinder them becauee if they do not resite them for any reason, such as believe another did it or too much going on, the criminal may be freed because of them, which will later on affect they're ability to complete their job. It may also benefit they due to the fact nothing will be able to be turned onto the police officer in order to help the ciminal be freed, such as the criminal confessing and they turn around and sue stating they had no knowlege this was acceptable.
ReplyDeleteIn the Gideon v Wainwright "Assistance of Counsel" means that the person is given a lawyer give to them by the court, if they are not able to get one on their own. In this case the judge denide him a lawyer to stand of his behalf, which forced him to represent himself. This was not fair on the grounds he was only semi-literate and did not fully understand what anlawyer was to do for him. His rights given to his as an american citizen given to him bt the constitution were violated, when this occured.
Miranda rights should be read to anyone getting arrested because it lets the person being arrested know what is going on and can happen when being prosecuted or being arrested. the Miranda rights has its bad side to because in any case if the police didnt read the person being arrested the rights than the case can and will get dismissed and the person walks free.Also if they dont read them the rights right away than anything said before the rights were read to the person can not be used in court. In the case Gideon v Wainwright the court did not appoint the defendant a lawyer to help defend his case and he was left to defend himself without any law experience. His sixth amendment was violated and amendments are there to protect everyone.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Miranda Rights help out a lot of people not self incriminate themselves. So I am actually for Miranda Rights. The help although some would say is negative help is somewhat true, this would make it way harder for police officials to do their job. So I would have to say that Miranda hinders the police. For Gideon v. Wainwright "the assistance of council" means that he was entitled to a person who understood the law or was able to provide better knowledge of the matter at hand. He was never permited council he was never told that he was entitled to a layer due to his rights. Yet he did not have to have assistance of council since it was never stated that he may have a layer in the constitution it is just a meer interpritation.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Miranda Rights are a excellent form of giving and explaining a person's rights. it allows a person to know how their rights are formulated and expressed. They give the rights to stay quiet or confess. And also, it can be used against a person to give them their punishment.
ReplyDeleteThe Assistance of Council, is also a good right for a person that allows them to have an equal trial in court with a lawyer, instead of being on their own. And in this case a lawyer was denied to him, which made him represent himself which was unequal and went against the constitution.
In my opinion the Miranda warnings hinder police law enforcement because not only does it increase the amount of time it takes to arrest someone but also opens a window of opportunity for the perpetrator to escape. However American citizens should be individually responsible for knowing their rights.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Gideon case the assistance of counsel means that the defendant has the right for someone or himself to represent them n court.
I think that the MIranda Rights should be read to everybody because most people aren't aware of their rights. Most people would incriminate themselves even if they aren't guilty because of how police do their jobs. I think that having to say the Miranda Rights hinders the police but every person should be aware of their rights regardless of the crime.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Gideon v Wainwright, the "assistance of counsel" wasnt permitted to him. Although he was guilty, he had the right to a fair trial and they didn't allow him that because he couldn't afford it. I think that everybody deserves assistance of counsel no matter their economic situation.
Miranda rights are negative and hinder law enforcement. Criminals should know the process in which they will be tried before committing illegal acts. They should not be given the luxury. When officers do not the criminal is acquitted which allows the guilty to walk. assistance of counsel is being allowed a person of legal precedent to represent a defendant. Gideon was permitted to represent himself due to the severity of the crime, he was not allowed a lawyer to represent him. This encroached his 6th amendment right. the Supreme Court decided that all defendants are allowed legal assistance.
ReplyDeleteMiranda rights are necessary they have to be instilled to give some one they're rights so they won't incriminate themselves. It necessarily doesn't hinder the police because evidence is still their to prove someone guilty or not guilty.yes criminals should have threw right to counsel because done aren't in the situation to afford one and can't represent themselves Gideon was given one after they realized he needed one.
ReplyDeleteMiranda rights are both a good and bad. Good because it lets the suspect or criminal know of his rights if he/she doesn't know what their rights are. It can help the individual so they know what they will be going through and that they will not be taken in permanently because they are innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand the Miranda rights are bad because if for some reason they are not read to the individual and there is evidence found leading to the criminal being guilty all the defendant must say is he was not read his/her rights and he will be let go when he/she is clearly guilty. Yes individuals should have the right to counsel because they main not always be able to afford a lawyer and it is only fair that they receive one for their trial. It doesn't have to be the best layers but one that can at least represent them in a case.
ReplyDeleteThe Miranda Warnings are helpful to the citizens allowing them to understand what sorts of rights they have. The warnings hinder police officials by the way that it gives them more responsibility. Should a police officer at some moment forget to read the warning to the person then it allows that person to be set free regardless if they are innocent or guilty. In the case of Gideon v Wainwright, Assistance to Counsel meant that a person could be appointed a lawyer. Gideon was able to represent himself in the court, but was denied the assistance to counsel because the court did not appoint him a lawyer. Assistance to Counsel is considered a way to help balance out the Miranda rights.
ReplyDelete