MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
This research paper discusse
This is an excerpt from the paper...
This research paper discusses the political, social and cultural dynamics of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Its thesis is that the Miranda holding was in the field of criminal procedure the most politically controversial and socially divisive decision in the history of the Supreme Court. The decision itself represented the high watermark in efforts by the Earl Warren Court (1954-1969) to afford criminal defendants in federal and state courts enhanced federal constitutional procedural protections. By requiring police for the first time to give such defendants in police custody certain warnings and advice concerning their constitutional rights (the Miranda Warnings), the Court reflected to some extent the dominant political culture of the early and mid-1960s. However, by the time Miranda was decided public opinion was already beginning to swing toward more effective control of crime and counter to the views of the narrow (five to four) majority on the Court in favor of the Miranda Warnings. Miranda produced a significant conservative political and popular backlash against the Court which itself under Chief Justices Warren Burger in the 1970s and 1980s and William Rehnquist after 1987 took on an increasingly more conservative hue and issued a series of rulings which restricted the scope and significance of the Miranda Warnings. The Rehnquist Court in 2000 refused to overrule Miranda, which by that time had become le
. . .
to families in humbler circumstances looking at the interrogation room through the eyes of the defendant, those born to families accustomed to privilege and influence looking at it through the eyes of the policeman" (p. 166). The vote crossed party lines. Warren and William Brennan, liberal Republicans, were in the majority, and Justices Tom Clark and Byron White, more conservative Democrats, joined the dissenters, who included Justices Potter Stewart and John Harlan.
For the majority, said Tushnet (1993), "concerns about equality intersected with concerns about police practices, as the liberal justices became troubled by the anomaly that well-to-do and knowledgeable suspects were far more likely to refuse to answer police questions, as they were entitled to, than were poor suspects" (p. 22). Miranda was poor, came from a broken family, was ill-educated and subject to abnormal sexual fantasies. To protect such defendants, the majority ruled that all defendants from the time they came into custody had to be advised of their right to remain silent, that what they said could and would be used against them, and of their right to be represented by counsel, free of charge to the defendants if they were indigent. The Miranda Warnings
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Miranda Warnings, Michigan Tucker, According Cochran, Warren Court, Ernesto Miranda, John Harlan, Supreme Court, Yale Kamisar, Warnings Court, Conclusion Miranda, law enforcement, supreme court, university press, baker 1983, miranda warnings, warren court, leo thomas, criminal defendants, miranda debate law, boston northeastern, debate law, boston northeastern university, law justice policy, debate law justice, leo thomas iii,
Approximate Word count = 2707
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
