Miranda Rights CaseThe Miranda warning is “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 ensure that arrested suspects understand their rights. The disclaimer is in place so that if someone who may be suffering from a mental illness understands their rights and does not feel obligated to answer questions without a lawyer. Meanwhile, there are many "factors to consider, including age, experience, education, background, intelligence, ability to understand warnings, and ability to understand the consequences of waiver of rights” (United States Government, 2019). Miranda warnings are very important because they violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This quote from an article I found shows why Miranda warnings are so important: “The requirement to give Miranda warnings arises from the Supreme Court's decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). In Miranda, the Court held that an accused cannot be questioned by the police in the context of a custodial interrogation until the accused is informed of his right to remain silent, his right to consult a lawyer and his presence during interrogation, and the right to have a lawyer appointed 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 prevents a party from using evidence at trial that has been collected in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Information Institute, 2019).Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Therefore, with all the information I have regarding the John Smith case and the information I have researched, if I were the judge overseeing this case, I would have him rule that the case be dismissed without suite because the officer failed to read Mr. Smith his rights, meaning his rights were violated. I based this on the information I found: “When police delay granting Miranda rights to a suspect in custody to such an extent that they lack effectiveness, a waiver is not valid. Missouri v. Siebert, 542 US 600, 608, 159 L.Ed.2d 643, 652-653 (2004) (Miranda warnings administered to defendant only after full confession was obtained)” (Berkshire Library, 2019). When they do not know their Miranda rights, it leaves the door open for self-discrimination, which is a violation of constitutional rights. I feel like the officer knew he had to read the suspect his rights, regardless of the crime. Whereas at the time 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 state of mind. When he committed the crime against the president, he was not mentally competent or as they say, he was not in his 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 starredin which the main character attempts to assassinate the senator in the film to attract the attention of the young woman played by Jodi Foster. The fact that Hinckley watched the film over and over shows that he had become so fascinated by the film and the storyline with actress Jodi Foster. This quote shows how much this film and this actress affected his mental state. “had a pathological obsession with the 1976 film TaxiDriver, in which the main character attempts to assassinate a fictional senator. His lawyers claimed that Hinckley watched the film more than a dozen times, was obsessed with the lead actress, Jodie Foster, and tried to piece together the events of the film in his own life. It was the film, not Hinckley, they successfully argued, that was the real planning force behind the events of March 30, 1981” (A&E Television Networks, 2019). Today we have the current statutory test due to the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 which was placed so that criminals could not simply claim insanity as a defense. The current legal test for Hinckley's case is that even though he may have been influenced by the taxi driver in the film, that doesn't mean it was crazy. Meanwhile, watching a movie repeatedly does not constitute the right to claim insanity for attempting to assassinate the president. The current statutory test states that "the current standard entirely eliminates the volitional component of the ALI Model Penal Code's cognitive/volitional test, the ability to conform one's conduct to the requirements of the law." It also requires that the mental illness or defect be “severe.” This concept was added as a committee amendment "to emphasize that non-psychotic behavioral disorders or neuroses such as "inadequate personality, immature personality, or a pattern of antisocial tendencies do not constitute a defense ". This standard aimed to integrate the conclusion of case law according to which the voluntary consumption of alcohol and drugs, even if they render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act, does not constitute insanity or any other legally valid affirmative defense” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2019). So I think if Hinckley had been tried today, I believe 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 to get 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 by being known for his role in the story of the attempted assassination of the president. which involved the second amendment I chose was the sand 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 plea of mental alienation. Not only did they use the insanity plea, but anti-gun laws were changed to prevent people like them from owning a gun and causing further harm. Yes, people may think that the laws that were changed for gun control violated the people's Second Amendment, but it was not because they were trying to protect citizens from gun violence. Gun violence has gotten to the point where people are afraid to go anywhere because they are afraid of being shot. The moment Hinckley committed his crime, experiencing gun violence became a big problem., 2019)..