Reply3

REPLY TO all three 250 WORDS

1)

What is the Constitutional issue being decided in this case (as delineated by Chief Justice Warren in section I)?

Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination

.

When is it necessary for officers to read an individual his or her rights?

If a person is in custody, the police must read Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial. 

However, even if they want to invoke their rights, they still have to answer  questions asked about their name, age, address, etc. 

In your opinion, what are the benefits and drawbacks associated with this decision?

Benefits:

· If they don’t read your rights, then anything that you say isn’t admissible in court. 

· It also reminds people of their right to remain silent.

· Even if you waive your rights, you can change your mind at any time while the police question you.

Drawbacks:

· Just because people read their miranda rights doesn’t mean they understand them.

.

· The rights can be waived in special circumstances. Public safety, US law allows for a public safety exception to these rights.

· A confession given before a suspect has been read the Miranda Warning may find that confession entered as evidence in court.

2)

What does this ruling mean for defendants in criminal court participating in plea negotiations?

With this ruling it means that defendants have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in plea bargains. If a lawyer acts unethically or gives clearly wrong advice, the defendant may be entitled to a second chance at accepting a plea offer.

What is your general opinion about the practice?  

I think in general it is a good practice, if the punishment fits the crime. Example,

· Drug charges- (simple possession, paraphernalia, etc.)  

· Misdemeanors-( shoplifting, criminal trespass, etc.) 

· Non-violent felonies ( public intoxication, using false identification, etc.) 

However, I do not agree with people being offered a plea deal for violent felonies, to get a lesser sentencing. Just like the police use discretion, so do the judges and D.A.’s office. Some crimes need to be plea down, it will help by not backing up the courts.

3)

1.
Do you think the methodology used to complete this study was valid?

As for the research design, the cause and effect model I think that yes it was valid. The experiment split the results over three different shifts, and different types of call response. I think that they tried to be as effective as they could have been.

2.
What limitations do you see, if any, in the way the study was conducted?

The limitations of only using 29% of the police force in “high risk” areas. Why not split it 50/50, instead of just the high risk areas. However, other than that not really, they used three different shifts, and they split the experiment over a year’s time. 

3.
Based on your knowledge and experience do you think given all of the technological advancements that officers have today this study’s findings are still valid? Why or Why not?

I do think that they are still valid. Most police departments can’t afford to have two officers per car. Some of the departments might not even have enough staff to have two per car. So, it would make sense that one officer in a car would be better than two. 

 However, the only thing that I would argue is that having two officers in a car, in this day and age is life saving. However, just because you don’t have to wait on backup doesn’t mean that the  situation is any less deadly for the officer or suspect.