The Miranda vs. Arizona Case of 1966, Essay Example

According to the Miranda vs. Arizona case of 1966, police cannot arrest juveniles or other criminals without first reading them their rights. In addition, juveniles cannot be interrogated unless these rights are waived. The Miranda rights include the right to remain silent, the fact that statements can be held against them, the right to counsel, and that counsel will be provided by the state if the individual is unable to provide it. For both juveniles and adults, the Miranda rights are read to allow the individual to understand that they have the potential for self-incrimination. In addition, in both cases, the police read the Miranda rights to ensure that individuals under arrest understand their rights according to law. The primary difference between the Miranda rights for juveniles and adults is the type of punishment or recourse they will receive for self-incrimination or their general criminal actions. The arrest of adults is synonymous with punishments for crimes and self-incrimination can contribute to the likelihood of this punishment occurring. On the other hand, juveniles are rehabilitated and self-incrimination will contribute to the likelihood that this will be necessary following the arrest. Additional differences are observed during the court hearing for juveniles, which act to both provide and limit the rights that these individuals are able to receive.