Logical Reasoning - Analyzing Arguments - Discussion

Choose the statement that is best supported by the information given in the question passage.

4. 

In the 1966 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona, the court held that before the police can obtain statements from a person subjected to an interrogation, the person must be given a Miranda warning. This warning means that a person must be told that he or she has the right to remain silent during the police interrogation. Violation of this right means that any statement that the person makes is not admissible in a court hearing.
This paragraph best supports the statement that

[A]. police who do not warn persons of their Miranda rights are guilty of a crime.
[B]. a Miranda warning must be given before a police interrogation can begin.
[C]. the police may no longer interrogate persons suspected of a crime unless a lawyer is present.
[D]. the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda should be reversed
[E]. persons who are interrogated by police should always remain silent until their lawyer comes

Answer: Option B

Explanation:

This answer is clearly supported in the second sentence. Nothing in the paragraph suggests that it is a crime not to give a Miranda warning, so choice a is incorrect. Choice c is also wrong because police may interrogate as long as a warning is given. There is no support given for either choice d or e.

Umair said: (Aug 14, 2010)  
what is meant by miranda warning
i can't understand this statement
plz help me

Yachna said: (Jan 7, 2015)  
The Miranda warning, also referred to as Miranda rights or Miranda rule, is a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.

The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law.

Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements as evidence against him or her in a criminal trial.

Bo Hudson said: (Jun 1, 2018)  
@All.

I disagree that answer B supports the paragraph better than answer E. First of all, it says that cops "must" read you your Miranda Rights before they interrogate you, however, police make mistakes and cover them up and it would be in your best interest to remain silent in any police interrogation anyway, especially if your guilty. So how is just knowing that a police officer is supposed to read you your Miranda Rights more "supportive" of the paragraph than actually understanding how you can apply this information and implementing a useful strategy to protect your freedoms?

Please clarify it.

Post your comments here:

Name *:

Email   : (optional)

» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.