Hello, I am looking for someone to write an article on The Miranda Rights. It needs to be at least 2250 words. Information that has been sourced from a criminal suspect that was not read his/ her Miranda rights is considered as being unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to by all individuals. Most criminal suspects that confess to committing a crime are forced to do so while under police custody. Law enforcement officers who interview such suspects usually make them feel that confessing is the only option of getting out of their situation easily. However, if a suspect is made to feel as if they have to confess, and they actually confess without having had their Miranda rights read to them, the evidence from what they say to incriminate themselves is admissible in court. History and purpose of Miranda rights The Miranda court case was introduced in 1966 in the case of Miranda versus Arizona. In this particular case, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnap and rape. Miranda was not informed right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination when arrested. Miranda was also subjected to the physical stress of having had to stand for the whole day in the room where he was also interrogated. Miranda was also not informed of his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to seek legal counsel from a lawyer. After being identified by the victim, Miranda was made to sign a confession of the crime. The evidence in form of writing that was agreed to by Miranda was used against him in a court of law leading to a conviction of a period of 20- 30 years. Miranda’s lawyer appealed against the court case decision on the basis that his client was not mirandized (Goldstein & Goldstein, 20). The Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the previous court decision to use the confession evidence. The court cited that a confession admitting to a crime cannot be dismissed on any grounds. However, the court acknowledged that Miranda was not allowed the opportunity to access a lawyer (Prentzas, 93). The lawyer would have offered Miranda legal advice to remain silent and not give out information that would have been incriminating and led to his conviction. Miranda was absolutely denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment Constitutional rights. The court conviction was overturned on the basis that the information that was used to prosecute Miranda was coerced and that he was not informed of his rights. If Miranda was aware of his right to provide evidence before a lawyer or remain silent, he would not have incriminated himself. This court decision made the judicial stand and intent clear on the important of reading individuals their rights before they are interrogated. If a suspect who is in custody decides to remain silent during the question, it is well within his/ her legal rights. If the individual asks for legal counsel to be present during the questioning, the individual is also within his/ her rights (Siegel, 29). The decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren led to the naming of the Miranda rights as they are so known till to date. The decision was considered to being controversial since it was considered that Miranda was guilty since he had been identified by the victim and he had agreed to sign the document that he had kidnapped and raped the victim in question. However, Miranda was arrested again on the basis of the victim’s testimony.