Under the 5th Amendment is where we as citizens have the right of Miranda Warnings. Miranda Warnings for most are miss understood, many believe they are to be used every time Law Enforcement talk to you or every time you are arrested. This however is untrue, Miranda Warnings are for custodial interrogations. Custodial interrogations is when you someone is in custody, meaning you are not free to go, you are a suspect and did not come voluntarily to speak to Law Enforcement. So when in custody you are to be read the Miranda Warnings before questioning, so that you are not wrongfully accusing yourself. I believe Miranda Warnings should be required in a custodial interrogation, because it is part of our right due to the 5th Amendment that we not wrongfully accuse ourselves. If they were disregarded then whatever one says to Law Enforcement can and will be used against you in the court of law. I don’t believe that whether you are given the Miranda Warnings changes anything in an interrogation, because if someone is going to give the truth they will give the truth, otherwise they will lie regardless of the repercussions. You still have to look at both sides of the dispute and see how the other thinks.…show more content… We would have protection in an interrogation. For instance if Law Enforcement forgets to say the Miranda Warning when interrogation then the finds are inadmissible in court, therefore we are protected. Although I can see on the other hand how this would help courts in finding someone guilty. Once again there could be some kind of stipulation on something like this as previously stated. Like everything it is all a particular way of thinking or a different angle to look at things. Both sides could be right and wrong, but I choose to keep Miranda Warnings. They are an essential part of our rights as an
