Write 150 word to the dicussion below. What are your thoughts about that post? What can you add or expand about their post? No title page. Need to cite and reference to support your answer.


This week discusses the circumstances of our rights to counsel and interrogation and identification.  We will focus on the depts involved with our Miranda rights which ho much further than just having an attorney.  One of the main things that people need to understand is that the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one should be held to be a witness against themselves, and they can not engage in self-incrimination. However, the larger issue of Miranda depends on when you are in custody and when the right to counsel attaches not only in the case of police interrogation but also throughout the entire legal process leading up to and even during the court trial.  A horrific case which was pointed out during 1931 in Alabama, was the Scottsboro boys.  There were nine black teenagers prosecuted for a rape that they did not commit.  In that case, the court held that in capital cases with special circumstances, antigen defendants were entitled to appointed appointed counsel.  It wasn’t until 1963 in the case of Gideon versus Wayne Wright that the Supreme Court extended the right to appointed counsel in cases where there is a probability of substantial prison sentences.  The right to counsel applies to custodial interrogation cases.  The right of antigen suspects to have appointed counsel was clearly provided for with the Miranda Warnings.  One major important factors from a law enforcement perspective, from a prosecutor, or even from a defense perspective is that no person is compelled to help the government make a case against him or herself.  That is specifically what the Fifth Amendment and its surrounding issues speak to.  This was a terrific podcast.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *