When an arrest is made, standard procedure by the police is to interrogate the accused in an attempt to acquire a confession or an admission of guilt. This can be later used in a court of law. The officer must ensure that the individual has a clear understanding of their Constitutional rights (under the Fifth Amendment) prior to being questioned. If the person is not informed of these rights, any statements made cannot be used in court. These rights include:
• The right to remain silent. Any statement made may be used as evidence against the defendant (Remy, Ritchie, Scott, & Hanson, 2016, pp. 490).
• The right to the presence of an attorney, either hired by the defendant or appointed by the court (Remy et al., 2016, pp. 490).
These protections, otherwise known as the Miranda rights, are based on the previous case (or precedent) known as Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year old woman. Being found guilty of both crimes, the US Supreme Court overturned the conviction stating that his rights were violated; the police never disclosed he had the right to avoid self-incrimination by not answering their questions and an attorney was never present during the interrogation which violates the Sixth Amendment (Remy et al., 2016, pp. 490). Whether an interrogation takes place at a crime scene or down the street; whether it is a cashier, teacher or a judge, the police must give that individual a Miranda warning if they are being taken into custody. While there is a Code of Conduct for United States Judges, adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973 (“United States Courts,” 2014), I believe everyone is entitled to the rights set forth by the US constitution. “The code of conduct for United States judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities” (United States Courts,” 2014). The fact that a judge is an officer of the law charged with the administration of justice, an assessors of right and wrong-doings and one that upholds the law, automatically holds him at a higher standard of conduct. His position of power and leadership should set the precedence of what is acceptable and dignified behavior.
References
Remy, R. C., Ritchie, D. A., Scott, L. M., & Hanson, M. L. (2016). United States Government (pp. 490-491). Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill Education.
United States Courts. (2014). Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges