Miranda Rights Case The Miranda warnings are “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you”( Berkshire Library, 2019).These warnings are placed fourth so that people's rights are not violated but not only to make sure arrested suspects understand their rights. The warning is in place so that if anyone who might suffer from a mental illness understand your rights and therefore do not feel pressured to answer questions without an attorney In the meantime, there are so many "factors to consider including age, experience, education, background, intelligence, ability to understand warnings, and ability to understand the consequences of waiving the defendant's rights" (U.S. Government, 2019). The Miranda warning is very important because it violates the fifth and sixth amendment. This quote from an article I found shows why Miranda warnings are so important “The requirement to provide Miranda warnings stems from the Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). In the Miranda case, the Court held that a defendant cannot be questioned by the police in the context of a custodial interrogation until he is informed of the right to remain silent, the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer present during the interrogation. interrogation, and the right to appoint a lawyer in case of indigence. These warnings arise from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Exclusionary Rule Without a Miranda warning or a valid waiver of Miranda rights, statements made may be inadmissible at trial under the exclusionary rule, which bars a party from using evidence at trial gathered in violation of the U.S. Constitution "(Legal Information Institute, 2019). Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essayTherefore, with all the information I have on the John Smith case and the information that I researched if I was the judge overseeing this case, rule that the case be dismissed on the grounds that the officer did not read Mr. Smith his rights, which means his rights were violated. I based this on the information which I found “When police delay granting Miranda rights to a suspect in custody to the point where they are ineffective, a waiver is invalid. Missouri v. Siebert, 542 US 600, 608, 159 L.Ed.2d 643, 652-653 (2004) (Miranda warnings not administered to detaining defendant until full confession obtained)” (Berkshire Library, 2019). When they are not read their Miranda rights, they leave the door open to self-discrimination in which they violate their constitutional rights. I have a feeling the officer knew he had to give the suspect his rights, regardless of the crime committed. While at the moment everything was happening, the suspects could have reacted in a moment of duress. Hinckley CaseHinckley suffered from a mental disorder called narcissistic personality disorder in which he was not in his right frame of mind. When he committed the crime against the president, he was not mentally capable or, as we say, he was not in the right state of mind because he thought he could impress Jodi Foster by killing the president. He got this ideal from a movie called Taxi Driver in which Jodi Foster starred in which the main character tries to assassinate the senator in the movieto attract the attention of the young woman played by Jodi Foster. The fact that Hinckley watched the film over and over again shows that he was so fascinated by the film and the plot of the story along with actress Jodi Foster. This quote shows how much this movie and this actress affected his mental state. “He had a pathological obsession with the 1976 film Taxi Driver, in which the main character attempts to assassinate a fictional senator. His lawyers claimed that Hinckley had seen the film more than a dozen times, was obsessed with the lead actress, Jodie Foster, and had attempted to reconstruct the film's events into his life. The film, not Hinckley, they successfully argued, was the real planning force behind the events that occurred on March 30, 1981” (A&E Television Networks, 2019). Today we have the current legal test mandated by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. which has been positioned so that criminals cannot simply claim insanity for their defense. The current legal evidence in Hinckley's case is that even though he may have been influenced by the taxi driver in the film, that doesn't mean he constitutes insanity. Meanwhile, watching a movie repeatedly does not constitute the right to claim that you are crazy for trying to assassinate the president. The current statutory test states that “The current rule completely eliminates the volitional pole of the cognitive/volitional test of the ALI Penal Model, i.e. the ability to conform the conduct to the legal requirements. It also requires that the mental illness or defect be “serious.” This concept was added as a committee amendment "to emphasize that nonpsychotic behavioral disorders or neuroses such as an "inadequate personality, an immature personality, or a pattern of antisocial tendencies do not constitute the defense." This rule was intended to incorporate the conclusion of case law that the voluntary use of alcohol and drugs, even if they render the defendant incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act, does not constitute insanity or any other legally valid affirmative defense” ( Department of United States Justice, 2019). So, I think if Hinckley had been tried today, I think he would have been found guilty because his actions are not excusable because he tried to kill the president who is a government official. Watching a movie repeatedly does not constitute the right to kill someone because you want the attention of the actor who starred in the movie. In our justice system today, we would take into consideration the fact that he had no remorse for what he had done, it was as if he was proud of what he had accomplished being known for his role in the story of the attempt to assassinate the president. The landmark case involving the Second Amendment that I chose was the Sandy Hook mass shooting in 2012. John Hinckley's case had a huge impact on Adam Lanza's case due to the fact that they used the insanity plea . Not only did they use the excuse of insanity, but anti-gun laws were changed to help prevent people like them from picking up a gun and causing more harm. Yes, people might think that laws requiring gun control change violated people's Second Amendment, but it wasn't because they were trying to protect citizens from gun violence. Gun violence has gotten to the point that people are afraid to go anywhere because they fear being shot. The moment Hinckley committed his crime to learn about gun violence became a big deal. In this quote from an article I found he explains why gun control is very important and how it doesn't violate the latter, 2019)..