Question

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that individuals must be made aware of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when they are taken into custody, and that they must be given opportunity to exercise those rights throughout the interrogation. Which founding principle did the court uphold in this decision?

Answer 1

in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court upheld the principle of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals against self-incrimination, stating that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Sixth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to have an attorney present during questioning and the right to remain silent.

The Court ruled that when individuals are taken into custody, law enforcement must inform them of their rights, commonly known as the Miranda rights. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If these rights are not explained, any statements made by the individual may not be admissible in court.

By upholding the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in Miranda v. Arizona, the Court ensured that individuals in police custody are aware of their rights and have the opportunity to exercise them. This decision protects the rights of the accused and ensures fairness in the criminal justice system.

To summarize, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in Miranda v. Arizona, which guarantees individuals the right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning when taken into custody.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer 2

Step-by-step explanation:

In the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) case, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of protection against self-incrimination, which is rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves in a criminal case.

The Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona emphasized the importance of informing individuals of their rights, known as the Miranda rights, when they are taken into custody and before they are subjected to custodial interrogation. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The Court held that failure to provide this information to individuals in custody would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

By establishing the requirement for law enforcement to inform individuals of their rights, the Court sought to ensure that suspects are aware of their constitutional protections and have the opportunity to exercise those rights when facing custodial interrogation. This decision aimed to safeguard the principle that individuals should not be compelled to incriminate themselves and have the ability to make informed choices regarding their involvement in criminal proceedings.