Public Safety and Privacy Analysis

Public Safety and Privacy Analysis

The paper aims to emphasize and critically analyze the case - Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250. The mentioned case deals with issues regarding public safety as well as privacy U.S. The trial happened in 2008, when the decision of Supreme Court faced problems of public safety and privacy. Supreme Court in the case took the controversial decision. According to the dissenting opinion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the decision puts Miranda upside down. Crimes suspects must unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent, which intuitively requires them to speak. The prisoners and defendants in general should manifest it clearly and unequivocally to the effect that wish to exercise their right to remain silent. The reading of the case provide us a clear idea regarding what rights got referred in the case. These rights become known as Miranda rights as the court made it obligatory for the police to inform people regarding their rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its judgment Berghuis v. Thompkins, which enshrines a narrow interpretation of the famous Miranda rights. The famous case of 1966 is giving many a reason for debate because there is apparent clarity of the doctrine it follows, but it continues to deliver in practice quite shady areas. In the case on trial, proceeded to read clearly such rights the detainee in question, a citizen (Thompkins) charged with murder, and whom the agent in charge of the interrogation asked him to read the rights form loudly. The problem arose because during police questioning the detainee did not request the presence of counsel nor made use of his right to remain silent. Thompkins raised a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his statements during police interrogation excluded as they were in violation of the Miranda rights. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals by the Sixth Circuit court rejected it (Welsh & Farrington, 2009).

Background

Miranda warning is warning given when an arrest or investigation by the police in the United States. According to the law of United States, police must use this warning to suspects before they can be inquired about questions related to the commission of a crime. The intent of this warning is to inform the suspect of the right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination. Police use Miranda warnings in the United States of America so frequently that American television series has also adopted it. Countries obey democracies to allow suspects the right to remain silent (Bailey, 2007). Miranda warning conveyed to suspects just before an investigation in which they face questions related to suspicion about the execution of a crime and does not have to obey any arrest. When an arrest does not accompany by an investigation in which the suspect may incriminate himself, there is no obligation to read the warning.

Ernesto Miranda, born in 1941, got arrested in March 1963 in Phoenix. He returned to Arizona on suspicion of several counts of kidnapping, robbery and ...