Do Miranda Rights Benefit the Defendant Too Much Where Courts Reject Voluntary Confessions? The Fifth Amendment clearly states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, except upon presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia (Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution) When arresting citizens, officers must inform the individual of his or her rights otherwise the statement made will be ignored in court (US Gov Info/Miranda: Right of Silence). rights that protect citizens of the United States from self-incrimination (See cases Miranda v Arizona, Dickerson v United States and Escobedo v Illinois) “If the individual states that he or she wants an attorney, questioning must cease until an attorney is present. . At that time, the individual must have the opportunity to confer with the attorney and have him or her present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual is unable to obtain an attorney and states that he or she wants one before speaking to the police, the police must respect his or her decision to remain silent." (US Gov Info/Miranda: Right of Silence) Dominant key participants would be the prosecutor, the police officials and the supreme courts. The challengers would be the defendant, the lawyer and any protesters. Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah, will try to argue the case before the Supreme Court. Mr. Cassell believes that the Miranda requirements must be relaxed. Dickerson v. United States, 530 US 428 (2000) was a case in which the courts had to debate whether his statements were voluntary and whether he had waived his Miranda rights. . half of paper ... the confessions made were forced or voluntary and to establish a fair trial for the accused It is the right of the arresting officers to recognize the accuser's rights because if the courts were not fair it was the purpose of having them a. The Miranda Rights has one purpose and that is to inform the accused of his rights before self-incrimination therefore; it is up to the accused to waive their rights. This would not be America if people were guilty before being proven innocent. . I agree with the courts if the defendant makes a statement before the officer has a chance to read it, rights that the statement should be used in court. The alternative to an unfair trial could separate Americans for years. We can have two different classes fighting one class to be equal and this could create big byes that can destroy our country for years.