The Bill of Rights guarantees basic human and civil rights to every American. The Fifth Amendment protects the rights of those that are accused of committing a crime. The constitutional Framers were intent on creating a system that was very different from the judicial system that had been in place in England. The Star Chamber and the High Commission were English courts that allowed various forms of inquisition, including torture, to force confessions and oaths from prisoners. Although these courts could not impose the death penalty, they could inflict any punishment up to death, including subjecting prisoners to lashings, objects of torture, and mutilation.

In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights formally abolished this practice in the United States. After several states petitioned for prohibition against self-incrimination to be added to the Bill of Rights, James Madison included these provisions in the Fifth Amendment. The amendment states that no person "shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." In other words, people accused of crimes have the right not to provide evidence that can be used against them.

The prohibition of self-incrimination was tested in the Supreme Court case Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944). When Mrs. Zelma Ida Ashcraft was found dead near her car on the side of a Tennessee highway, police held two men for questioning in her murder: a 20-year old suspect named Ware and the victim's husband, Ashcraft. After being interrogated under electric lights by officers continuously for 36 hours, Ashcraft confessed that he had hired Ware to murder his wife, and both men were convicted. Ashcraft appealed, claiming that he was intimidated into admitting involvement in the murder. The Court agreed with Ashcraft and overturned the conviction on the grounds that the defendant's confession was coerced.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is a landmark Supreme Court case regarding criminal rights. When police arrested Ernesto Miranda for kidnapping and rape, he signed a confession without fully understanding his civil rights. Miranda was convicted, and he appealed, claiming that his confession was gained illegally. The Supreme Court agreed and declared that all persons should be given their rights at the time of arrest to ensure that they know and understand their civil liberty rights.

Miranda v. Arizona held that coercion is inherent if a person has not been informed of their constitutional rights. In other words, for a confession to be admissible, a person must know their rights. According to Miranda, arrestees must be informed of the following rights at the time of the arrest: their constitutional right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, and that they have a right to an attorney and the court will provide an attorney if they cannot afford their own.

The Court granted Miranda a second trial, where his confession was not included as evidence. Based on other evidence, Miranda was again convicted of kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison and was paroled in 1972. Ironically, when Miranda himself was stabbed to death in a fight in 1976, the police arrested a suspect who chose to remain silent after being read his Miranda rights. The suspect was released and no one was ever charged with the killing.

Since Miranda, the Court has reinforced the ruling several times. The one significant exception occurred in New York v. Quarles (1984), when a police officer arrested and questioned the alleged assailant before reading him his Miranda rights. The Court ruled that to maintain public safety police could question a suspect prior to giving the Miranda warning. As recent as 2002, the Supreme Court again reinforced the rights of a suspect by deciding in Dickerson v. U.S. that Congress cannot pass legislation to overrule the Miranda warning requirement.

Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of California and Monterey Institute for Technology and Education