Judicial review is among the major powers that are exercised by the US judiciary, whereby it conducts reviews on legislations and policies at all levels of government. In the history of the US, judicial reviews have had a considerable impact on the progress of the nation since the first review of 1803, the Marbury v. Madison (“About the Supreme Court," n.d). It is from this precedence that the judiciary can perform a review on legislation or policy that is passed by the Congress or decisions from an arm of government. Another fundamental judicial review is the Miranda v. Arizona of 1966. In this review, the ruling was that the police required to enlighten a suspect of their constitutional right to an attorney and against any form of self-incrimination (“Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona," n.d). Indeed, despite the political circumstances surrounding the judicial review, the process was justified and that the judiciary should regularly review laws, judgments, and national policies.
Ernesto Miranda, an American citizen, convicted of rape, robbery, and kidnapping before being sentenced, was unconstitutionally questioned by the police. Although Miranda was a high profile suspect, he had a right to have legal representation and to be protected against self-incrimination. From the confessions that he gave the police, Miranda was subsequently imprisoned, but later in 1966, he sought the intervention of the US Supreme Court on the behavior of the police. The judges ruled that indeed the police should inform a suspect of their right to a lawyer and against self-incrimination (“Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona," n.d). Before the judicial review was actualized, the different branches of government had debated the decision of the Supreme Court and unanimously agreed to support it (Ley & Verhovek, 2014). From the debate in the Congress concerning the review to the government’s support to the case shaped the Miranda decision. It was a positive development since before the review; Congress had struggled to find apposite ways of informing an accused of their constitutional rights when in police custody in the District of Columbia (Ley & Verhovek, 2014). The political class was therefore saved from further hassles of navigating the delicate issue.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
After the arrest of Miranda, the law enforcement officers did not enlighten him of his constitutional rights before commencing their investigation. During the questionings, Miranda revealed a lot without any guidance from an attorney and in conjunction with being mentally unstable, thus subsequently incriminating himself (“Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona," n.d). Further, during the trial, the jury entirely depended on his confession, as presented by the prosecution. Consequently, Miranda was found guilty of rape and kidnapping and jailed for between 20 and 30 years (“Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona," n.d). After the repeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona administrated that no rights of Miranda were dishonored. In 1966, Miranda appealed to the US Supreme court, and it was in its final ruling that it reviewed the previous court rulings. According to the review, a defendant should be informed of his rights to a lawyer and against self-incrimination (McBride, 2007). The right against self-incrimination had been a component of Anglo American law for a long time before the review. Judicial reviews in the US should be used more often to avoid abuse of citizenry rights by state organs. In the Miranda v. Arizona review, the court entrenched the equalization of the vulnerability inherent in being in police custody. If it had left such a requirement unchecked, it could have institutionalized government abuse (“Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona," n.d). From a consequentialist perspective in that judicial reviews are beneficial to the effective upholding of constitutional rights. Besides, a suspect should have an inalienable right to explanation under-informed guidance.
In conclusion, judicial review, as informed by the precedence set by the Marbury v. Madison (1803) case, is necessary for a democratic country. Fast-forward, the Miranda v. Arizona followed on the 1803 example and institutionalized the right of a suspect to a lawyer and against self-incrimination. From the politics surrounding the case to the resultant constitutional rights, the position of this paper is that judicial reviews should be used more often. That way, constitutional rights will be protected.
References
About the Supreme Court. Retrieved 4 December 2019, from www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about
Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved 4 December 2019, from www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona
Ley, A. J., & Verhovek, G. (2014). The Political Foundations of Miranda v. Arizona and the Quarles Public Safety Exception. Berkeley J. Crim. L. , 19 , 206.
McBride, A. (2007). The Supreme Court. Expanding Civil Rights. Landmark Cases. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | PBS. Retrieved 4 December 2019, from www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
