The judicial system of the United States has been of significant impact in the law enforcement process. A Miranda warning refers to the warnings that law enforcement officers give offenders. This warning is often done prior to arrest and subsequent interrogation of a suspect who has been taken in custody (Rushcmann, 2007). Miranda warnings have had a significant impact on the law since the suspects are given respect which brings about fair justice. Law enforcers do not depend so much on confessions from the defendants to prove their guilt, but instead, use Miranda’s warning which is effective.
Miranda warning provides constitutional rights to the suspects of crime in that it provides to suspects knowledge of their constitutional rights before interrogation and also gives them an opportunity to prevent their rights. Miranda warning protects suspects from pernicious interrogation practices by giving them a chance to invoke their rights during the interrogation. The limitation of Miranda warning is that it does not guard against law enforcers brutality and harassments to the suspects.
The Burbine test for waivers presents a number of factors that test the validity of a waiver of Miranda rights which aids in circumstances of interrogation to determine if a waiver has knowledge of the offense. Miranda warning attaches, the right of a suspect to remain silent, what he or she says can be used against him or her in court, the suspect has right to consult a lawyer and if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, an attorney will be provided free of charge.
Custody refers to the time in which a suspect is held before interrogation, this provides psychological pressures from being confined making him likely to seek relief by information of the case. Interrogation refers to the statement given freely and voluntarily without compelling influences from other people. Miranda rights are asserted by the police after arresting a suspect before being charged.