Miranda vs. Arizona

Paper Summary:

This paper looks at the intentions of the Warren Court's Miranda ruling, who Miranda rights are designed to protect, and how they are often subjugated in the interests of obtaining a confession or used as a way of obstructing a confession. Minimum enforcement requirements regarding Miranda are explained, the pros and cons of Miranda are discussed, and the question of whether Miranda should apply to the interrogation of terrorists is addressed as well.

From the Paper:

"All the Miranda views read together--the different disagreements, as well as the majority opinion--propose that the Court planned to hold, as the lowest minimum, that no testimonial is allowable devoid of proof that the suspect was educated of his right to remain silent. For the reason that Section 3501 authorizes confessions to be introduced devoid of evidence that the suspect was so clued-up, it would, on this interpretation of Miranda's narrow holding, be unconstitutional. (John Malcolm, 1970)."

More papers on Miranda vs. Arizona:

• Argumentative Essay # 58194 : "Miranda vs. Arizona and Dickerson vs. U.S."
• Essay # 53122 : "Miranda Rights"
• Analytical Essay # 45646 : "Landmark Cases of Racial Discrimination"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: