Review of Miranda V Arizona and Hinckley Case

Miranda Rights Case

Miranda warning are “You have the right to remain silent, Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law, You have the right to an attorney, If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you”(Berkshire Library, 2019). These warning are set fourth so that peoples rights are not violated but not only its to make sure that the suspects that are being arrested understand their rights. The warning is in place so that if someone who may suffer from a mental illness understands their rights and so they don’t feel pressure into answering questions without an attorney. Meanwhile, there are so many “Factors to consider include the defendant's age, experience, education, background, intelligence, capacity to understand the warnings, and capacity to understand the consequences of waiving rights” (United states government, 2019). The Miranda warning are very important because it violates the fifth and the sixth amendments. This quote from an article I found show why Miranda warnings are so important “The requirement to give Miranda warnings came from the Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). In Miranda, the Court held that a defendant cannot be questioned by police in the context of a custodial interrogation until the defendant is made aware of the right to remain silent, the right to consult with an attorney and have the attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed if indigent. These warnings stem from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Exclusionary Rule Without a Miranda warning or a valid waiver of the Miranda rights, statements made may be inadmissible at trial under the exclusionary rule, which prevents a party from using evidence at trial which had been gathered in violation of the United States Constitution” (Legal Information Institute, 2019).

Therefore, with all the information that I have concerning John Smith case and the information I have researched if I was the judge overseeing this case I would rule that the case be dismissed due to the fact that the officer didn’t read Mr. Smith his rights in which it means that his rights were violated. I based this on the information that I found “When police delay the giving of Miranda rights to a custodial suspect to a point where they lack efficacy, a waiver is invalid. Missouri v. Siebert, 542 U.S. 600, 608, 159 L.Ed.2d 643, 652-653 (2004) (Miranda warnings not administered to custodial defendant until after a full confession was obtained)” (Berkshire Library, 2019). When they are not read their Miranda rights it leaves the door open for self-discrimination in which is a violation to the constitution rights. I feel as though the officer knew he had to read the suspect his rights no matter what the crime was. While in the moment of everything happening, the suspects could have reacted in a moment of duress.

Hinckley Case

Hinckley suffered from a mental disorder called narcissistic personality disorder in which he was not in his right state of mind. When he committed the crime against the president, he wasn’t mentally capable or as we say he wasn’t in his right state of mind because he thought he could impress Jodi Foster by killing the president. He got this ideal from a movie called taxi driver in which Jodi Foster starred in where the main character tries to assassinate the senator in the movie to get the attention of the young lady who Jodi Foster played. The fact that Hinckley’s would watch the movie over and over goes to show that he had become so fascinated with the movie and the story plot along with actress Jodi Foster. This quote shows how much this movie and actress affected his mental state. “had a pathological obsession with the 1976 film Taxi Driver, in which the main character attempts to assassinate a fictional senator. His lawyers claimed that Hinckley had watched the movie more than a dozen times, was obsessed with the lead actress, Jodie Foster, and had attempted to reenact the events of the film in his own life. The movie, not Hinckley, they successfully argued, was the actual planning force behind the events that occurred on March 30, 1981” (A&E Television Networks, 2019).

Today we have the present statutory test due from the insanity defense reform act of 1984 which was placed so that criminals can’t just clam insanity for their defense. The present statutory test to the case of Hinckley is that even though he might have been influenced by the movie taxi driver does not mean that constitute for insanity. Meanwhile, watching a movie repeatedly does not constitute the right to claim insanity for trying to assassinate the president. Todays present statutory test states that “The current standard eliminates entirely the volitional prong of the cognitive/volitional test of the ALI Model Penal Code, the capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law. It also requires that the mental disease or defect be 'severe.' This concept was added as a committee amendment 'to emphasize that non-psychotic behavior disorders or neurosis such as an 'inadequate personality, immature personality, or a pattern of antisocial tendencies do not constitute the defense.' This standard was intended to incorporate the conclusion of the case law that voluntary use of alcohol and drugs, even if they render the defendant unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the act, does not constitute insanity or any other legally valid affirmative defense”(U.S. Department of Justice, 2019). So therefore, I think if Hinckley was trialed today, I believe that he would have been found guilty because his actions are not excusable because he tried to kill the president which is a government official. Watching a movie repeatedly does not constitute the right to kill someone because you want attention from the actor that played in the movie. In our justice system today, we would take in consideration that he had no remorse for what he did it was like he was proud of what he accomplished by being known for his role in the history of trying to assassinate the president.

The historical milestone case that involved the second amendment that I chose was the sandy hook mass shooting in 2012. The case of John Hinckley had a huge impact on the case of Adam Lanza because of the fact they used the insanity plea. They not only used the insanity plea but the laws against gun where changing to help prevent people like them from getting hold a gun and causing more harm. Yes, people may think that the laws that where changing for gun control was violating peoples second amendment, but it wasn’t because they where trying to keep the citizens safe from gun violence. The gun violence has got to the point where people are afraid of going any where because they fear of being shot. 

The time when Hinckley committed his crime to know the gun violence has become a big problem. In this quote from an article I found explains why gun control is very important and how it doesn’t violate the second amendment. “The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the main parts of gun control laws passed in New York and Connecticut after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The laws ban certain weapons such as the semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. New York governor Andrew Cuomo praised the decision in a statement: 'This case validates a simple, fundamental truth about gun control: that it is possible to have strong laws that keep our communities safe, while at the same time respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. New York has set the example – and its far past time for Washington to follow suit and pass a sensible national gun control policy”” (Pedroncelli, 2019). This was placed after the case against Adam Lanza in which he shot up a school and killed innocent children and faculty workers. Where in the case of John Hinckley the “The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, signed into law on October 12, 1984, was the first comprehensive Federal legislation governing the insanity defense and the disposition of individuals suffering from a mental disease or defect who are involved in the criminal justice system. The more significant provisions: significantly modified the standard for insanity previously applied in the Federal courts; placed the burden of proof on the defendant to establish the defense by clear and convincing evidence; limited the scope of expert testimony on ultimate legal issues; eliminated the defense of diminished capacity; created a special verdict of 'not guilty only by reason of insanity” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2019). 

At this point of time they only had the constitution amendments which must evolve over time as generations change so should the laws. These cases have helped the criminal justice profession because it’s making it harder for people to get away with crimes and play the insanity role but not only that the insanity defense act passed the providing proof from the prosecutors to the defense attorney. Therefore, it takes some caseloads off the prosecutors and the everyone involved in the court system.