Sara

Dissent

2009-06-18T11:52:00.000-07:00

Dissent
Miranda v. Arizona was not decided 9-0 by the Supreme Court, but 5-4, with the majority voting on the side of Miranda. Justices Harlan, Stewart, White, and Clark wrote dissents. “We do know that some crimes cannot be solved without confessions, that ample expert testimony attests to their importance in crime control, and that the Court is taking a real risk with society's welfare in imposing its new regime on the country” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/dissenting.html). The justices who ruled against the majority opinion thought that people who are willing to lie in court could just as easily lie about being warned of their rights. The main dissenting opinion states “The Court's new rules aim to offset . . . minor pressures and disadvantages intrinsic to any kind of police interrogation. The rules do not serve due process interests in preventing blatant coercion since . . . they do nothing to contain the policeman who is prepared to lie from the start” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/dissenting.html). The justices state that with these new rules in place, the justice system can’t be fairly and accurately predicted. Also, Ernesto first denied being guilty, and within two hours of interrogation, he gave an oral confession and signed a statement admitting and describing his crime. This happened “without any force, threats or promises, and without any effective warnings at all” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/dissenting.html).

My Own Argument

2009-06-18T11:51:00.000-07:00

My Own Argument
I do not agree with the majority vote on this case. I think that it suits people who don’t know how to lie for themselves and need lawyers to do it for them. If someone is given the Miranda Warning and still wants to confess to the crime they may have committed, I think that’s great and fine. But, if someone is too scared of the repercussions of their actions to admit what he or she had done, once given the warnings, they might back out of remotely even wanting to give a confession, and their case could end up never providing true justice to his or her wrongful action, whatever it may be. As said in Justice Harlan’s dissent, “We do know that some crimes cannot be solved without confessions” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/dissenting.html). It is true that some suspects might knowingly confess to committing whatever crime they are being accused of, but most often that is not what happens. I think that suspects shouldn’t have to be warned of self-incrimination. I believe in the saying that goes “those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing,” and an innocent suspect might say something questionable, but the truth comes out more times than not.

Rule of Law

2009-06-17T11:40:00.000-07:00

Rule of Law
The main precedent that had been established with the Miranda v. Arizona ruling is that “The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/majority.html). The suspected person must be clearly informed of his or her rights in order to comply with the Fifth Amendment. This ruling applies to every single person in the United States. If there has been no such Miranda Warning, any thing the suspect says without first being warned cannot be admitted at trial, stating in the majority opinion that “Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/majority.html).

Reasoning of the Court

2009-06-17T11:18:00.000-07:00

Reasoning of the Court
The reasoning of the justices who voted for Miranda considered his side of the case to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Justice CJ Warren: “Warnings are a judicial prophylactic to protect the fundamental right against compelled self-incrimination because of the oppressive nature of station house questioning. This case does not hamper police officers in investigating crime because general on-the-scene questioning is not affected. Conviction reversed” (http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/miranda.htm). He states that if a person is taken into custody or deprived of any of his or her freedoms, he or she must be warned that they have a right to remain silent, and anything they say can be used against them in the court of law. “No evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against a person unless the prosecution has shown that the person had been informed of his rights. If a person indicates a desire to remain silent or have an attorney present at any time during questioning, the interrogation must cease or cease until an attorney is present” (http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/miranda.htm). If the suspect has been warned, he or she may knowingly waive his or her rights and make statements and answer questions without counsel.

Decision of the Court

2009-06-11T15:49:00.001-07:00

The Supreme Court came to the decision that statements previously made by the defendants during custodial interrogation unless the proper procedural precautions were taken "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition"(www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759). Specific rules were laid out by the Supreme Court as to what police are supposed to say while giving warnings to suspects, "including the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel during interrogations"(www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759). And, “the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights” (http://www.thecapras.org/mcapra/miranda/rights.html#MirandaVsArizona) .The Supreme Court decided the case with 5 votes for Ernesto Miranda and 4 votes against him, with the legal provision of self-incrimination. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren wrote the full majority opinion. I agree more with the dissent opinion because lawyers are good at hiding things and if a guilty person had not been advised of his or her right to counsel, they may have admitted to the crime they committed. If, however, they chose to have a lawyer present, the lawyer would prevent the guilty suspect from making any incriminating statements, making justice harder to be served.

Illicit Trafficking

2009-06-04T15:44:00.000-07:00

Illicit Trafficking
I think that the Black Market is terrible for the world’s economy, governments, and peoples’ safety, health, and general welfare. However, I think that illegal trading will be around forever. The movie mentioned that it’s nearly impossible to stop because of all of the networking and how it’s so huge that it’s all over the whole world. Another reason I think it will be around forever is that it has been going on since the beginning of modern civilization. If people see something they crave, for the attention, envy, or glory they think it will give them, and then they see what appears to be the same exact item for an affordable price, they will most likely buy it. Even though the person might know the item is made illegally, they have the mindset of only being one person, for example: “If I buy this, I’m contributing to the world of bad that is the Black Market…but it doesn’t really matter because I’m only one person, I probably won’t get caught, and one person isn’t making the world terrible, so other people can take the blame.” But, they don’t realize that if a billion people share that same exact feeling, then every person is the problem and almost 1/7 of the world’s population is the problem. However, people have always and will always feel that they’re not the one responsible for such problems, so they will continue to do wrong and brush it off their backs like nothing.

Issue of the Case

2009-06-04T14:19:00.000-07:00

Issues of the Case
The case of Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona was brought before the Supreme Court because Miranda’s lawyer thought it had been unfair that his client had not been notified of his right to silence or right to have an attorney present when he spoke, so he had willingly admitted to a crime he had committed, which the court used as evidence against him in trial. His lawyer brought the case to the Supreme Court because it was in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. “The Fifth Amendment protectspersons from being forced to testify against themselves. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to a layer.” (Stanley Kutler, World Book Encyclopedia 2008 Volume M)

Progress on Supreme Court Case

2009-05-28T15:16:00.000-07:00

Progress on Supreme Court Case
As of now, I still have the majority of research and work to do on my Supreme Court case project. I have begun my research on my selected case, Miranda vs. Arizona, and completed the first of seven sections of the brief. I’ve only done some online research, so during the next week I’m going to be looking to find more sources on the case. In doing my research on this case in particular, I’ve noticed that I had to go to many different websites to get different pieces of information about the case, which is something I don’t usually have to do when researching other things…I usually find relatively the same information on all the websites that I look at. At first, I chose my case just to get a topic that no one else had, and not really knowing what to expect when I researched it. All I knew was that it had something to do with the Miranda Rights. In doing my research, I’ve learned that the case I chose was pretty interesting because people can say some dumb things when they get arrested, not knowing that they could incriminate themselves even if they didn’t do that certain crime, so it’s important to inform them that they have the right to not speak until they have a lawyer around. In this upcoming week, I plan on looking at more sources to get even more information about my case.

Facts of the case

2009-05-28T09:51:00.000-07:00

Miranda versus Arizona.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery in March of 1963. Without having a lawyer present, "While in police custody he signed a written confession to the robbery, and to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery" (http://www.thecapras.org/mcapra/miranda/rights.html). At his trial, the lawyers used his admitted information against him to incriminate him. The problem was that while he was being interrogated by the police, he had not been informed of his right to have counsel before he answered any questions.
In trial, he was convicted of kidnapping and rape and got sentenced 20 to 30 years for each charge. His court-appointed attorney, John Flynn, appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court agreed with the sentencing and stressed the fact that Ernesto Miranda did not request an attorney and gave his admissions freely. There were many other cases in which the defendant or suspect had been interrogated by the police without being notified of their right to counsel such as Vignera v. New York, California v. Stewart , and Westover v. United States (http://www.oyez.org/cases/). The case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis that the police took the individuals into interrogation without notifying them of their right to counsel or informing them of self-incrimination, violating part of the Fifth Amendment which states the right not to testify against one’s self (self-incrimination) (caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/).

Pacific Heights

2009-05-21T23:51:00.000-07:00

In the movie, the new owners of the property seemed too naive to understand how to be successful landlords, even though their intentions to start off were good. They would probably be considered fine landlords if all of their tenants were respectful, had good hearts, and were willing to equally participate in the landlord/tenant relationship. However, since they got one ‘dud’ tenant who bred tons of disgusting cock roaches and refused to pay his rent, the couple was portrayed as a pair of push-overs. I don’t know what happened in the remainder of the movie, but in the portion I saw, they tried to take legal action to force out the unruly tenant, but it didn’t work. I think that there should have been a law that could have been enforced so they wouldn’t have to deal with all of that bad stuff, especially while she happened to be pregnant.

Greed is Good week 6

2009-05-14T22:14:00.000-07:00

In some cases being greedy is good such as when you are doing it to better yourself, not at the expense of others. Greed becomes a bad thing, however, when one person’s greediness interferes with other peoples’ well being and finances.

In my opinion, Wall Street is pretty nuts. People make it a big deal out of it and then wonder why it’s so messed up. I think that if people stopped worrying so much about the stock market and what goes on there then the bad economy would pretty much handle itself sooner than it would if we keep stressing out about it so much like how we’re doing. People need to realize that saving their money and not spending it is the wrong thing to do because the economy relies on the circulation of everyone’s money. If no money is being spent, that means the companies aren’t getting paid so workers are getting laid off, which in turn, makes them have no more money to spend, and so goes the circle. It’s good to be somewhat conservative with your money, but people just need to chill out about the stock trade and live their lives as they normally would have.

I think that stock traders who give themselves million and billion dollar bonuses are fine if they are hard-working, honest people who deserve that money. It’s not okay when they give themselves major bonuses like that if it’s taking the money out of the hands of equally hard-working but poorer people.

Drugs- To Legalize or Not.

2009-05-07T14:20:00.000-07:00

Drugs- To Legalize or Not.
I agree with the author of the article that drugs that are now illegal in the US should be legalized and that. If that happened, the demand that’s so high would be a lot less, especially from other countries. I believe that for some people who indulge in drugs, part of their attraction to those drugs is the sheer fact that the drugs are illegal and it’s an adrenaline rush for them just knowing they can get caught. Legalization of drugs would eliminate at least that aspect of appeal right there. Also, as stated in the article, if we decriminalized not only marijuana, but also others such as cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines, people who are addicted to those drugs are not only more likely, but even more encouraged to get help for their addictions in rehabilitation centers because they wouldn’t be afraid of getting exposed, caught, and put into jail for illegal drug possession. The article states that Portugal legalized drugs in 2001 and has been largely successful, and has even lowered the amount of drug users in the country.
Keeping drugs illegal doesn’t work now and it still won’t work in the future because as long as drugs are going to exist, people will be attracted to them, just like how prohibition didn’t work for alcohol; it only encouraged people to steal and be sneaky about drinking. In addition, the legalization of drugs in the US “would puncture the market for imports from Mexico and elsewhere and would eliminate much of the profit that fuels the internecine warfare in Mexico,” making the countries involved not more dangerous, but rather more safe.

Crimes and Torts

2009-04-30T15:40:00.000-07:00

Sexual harassment
ReferFraud
Illegal gambling
Vandalism
Bribery
Underage driving
Reckless driving
Speeding
Lying under oath
False advertisement
Illegal use of drugs
Monopoly
Gun use/attempted murder
Embezzlement
Conspiracy
Trespassing
Running from the police
Standing up in the bed of a truck
Driving on the wrong side of the road

Classmate Blog Evaluations

2009-04-23T15:36:00.000-07:00

Classmate Blog Evaluation

Interiors By Coriandra http://ibcoriandra09.blogspot.com/
Coriandra’s blog about her opinion about the law is a lot like my own. We agree on a lot of things such as if there was no such thing as the law, order would not exist, the law is meant to be fair to the public, and that more people need to be educated about the country’s laws and judiciary system. It was very well written and worded the right way, and I can tell she took a lot of time on it. It draws the reader in and provides good points. I think it could be improved by making it a little bit longer and giving more background and detail about specific laws, but overall, it was a good blog.

TCOD http://elpdlm.blogspot.com/
Seth seems very enthusiastic about the law and learning more from our class. It’s good how he gives specific examples of times in his life that he’s witnessed crimes and torts and their consequences. He draws in whoever is reading the blog and makes them think that learning about law is really interesting. I like how it’s as if he was telling a story about his journey to learning about the law and how excited he was about the different kinds of crime. He could make it better by saying more of his opinions about the law in addition to what he already said about what he’s learned.

What I Think of the Justice System

2009-04-16T15:40:00.001-07:00

What I Think of the Justice System

I think that every society needs a good group of laws in order to function properly. Without these guidelines, anything goes, and the people might be in jeopardy. Before America had the Constitution, as I understand, the country had bad economy and trade, and the states had weak sets of laws with little enforcement. Now that we have a strong set of laws that can be enforced, we have a judiciary system that can help to organize the country and help the people get justice.
I think more people in the country should be aware of our laws and how the justice system works because I’ve noticed that not a whole lot of people know much at all about any laws or systems except from the biased reports they hear from the news, movies, or on the internet. I think it would benefit everyone living in a certain country to know how their country functions and how they can possibly be a better citizen and/ or use the law to their own advantage. People need to know what their freedoms and rights are.

I like to think that the American justice and law system is relatively fair to every citizen in the country. Even though sometimes some of the laws might not make much sense to the average person, I believe that the law is overall just and is meant to serve the people of the United States, and not out to get them. I know that lots of injustice is served to innocent people, but I would like to think that whenever that happens, it’s the exception, not the rule, and that more justice is served the right way than the wrong way.

What I Think About Lawyers

2009-04-15T22:32:00.000-07:00

What I Think Of Lawyers

I have mixed feelings about lawyers. I think that some lawyers are in the business for the right reasons (to help people find justice, etc), and some are in the business for all the wrong reasons (strictly for the money, power, and an ego boost). A close friend of my family is a very good lawyer and he is in the business for the right reasons. He loves his job. He genuinely befriends almost all of his clients and he works really hard and tries his absolute best to win all of his cases. He doesn’t sugar-coat anything; he gets the straight facts and doesn’t ever attempt to twist the truth. Before I met him, I pretty much thought all lawyers were kind of stingy and just tried to get your money but he is honest and hard working so he kind of restored my faith in some of them.

I think lowly of the lawyers who advertise themselves on television. To me, it shows that they’re not good enough on their own unless they have major advertising and their personalities come off as desperate and kind of full of themselves. I also don’t really like defensive attorneys. I think they twist the facts around too much for the jury to defend guilty people just so they can win another case and get their money. I think they’re immoral especially if they know their client is guilty and they still try to defend them anyways. I don’t like how a certain person can have all the evidence in the world pointing towards them being guilty and how the lawyer can convince a jury that it still doesn’t prove the suspect’s guilt. I think those kinds of lawyers are talented for being able to do that, but I think it’s wrong.