| Papers [1-15] of 43 :: [Page 1 of 3] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 —> | Search results on "MIRANDA RULE": |
|
|
The Miranda Rule, 2004.
This paper discusses and analyzes the topic of the Miranda Rule's effectiveness in America today.
1,254 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses why the Miranda Rule is well-tailored to guard against constitutional violations and presents an argument for the Miranda Rule. The Miranda Rule, first adopted in 1966, is still a contentious ruling in today's criminal justice system. The paper explains that, while some critics of the rule feel it is not a deterrent to coercion of information from a suspect, most experts believe the Miranda Rule was created with a solid foundation to help ensure a suspect's rights are not violated, and the information from any suspect is admissible in court. It argues that the Miranda Rule guards the criminal justice system just as well as it guards against rights violations and, because of this, it is vital to the quick and efficient trying of cases.
From the Paper
"The Miranda Rule was created in 1966 as a result of the Supreme Court case "Miranda vs. Arizona." The court required law enforcement officers and agencies making an arrest to inform a victim of his rights, in accord with the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees freedom from self-incrimination. The Miranda statement (often simply referred to as "Miranda") is usually a version something like this, read to detainees before they are questioned: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up 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 desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning" (FindLaw). Miranda has become common knowledge to most Americans because of its' constant use on most police and detective television shows. Just about everyone knows about Miranda, but not everyone knows why it is such and effective tool for law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system."
| |
|
Miranda Issues in Law Enforcement, 2004.
Review of the Miranda ruling and its implications.
1,082 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 14 sources, APA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains the legal requirements of the landmark Miranda ruling and discusses some of the holes in the ruling that have allowed police officers to occasionally circumvent it. The paper also examines some of the criticisms voiced by opponents of the Miranda ruling and offers arguments to counter these criticisms.
From the Paper
"In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Ernesto Miranda, who had been arrested by Arizona police on suspicion of rape. The suspect confessed to the crime after two hours of questioning by police while in their custody, without ever having been advised of his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination or his 6th Amendment right to legal representation before such questioning."
| |
|
Miranda vs. Arizona and Dickerson vs. U.S., 2005.
Argues that the Miranda warning is an important part of police procedure and that removal of the Miranda law would cause more harm than good.
1,838 words (approx. 7.4 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper first gives a brief history of the "Miranda vs. Arizona" landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that, upon arrest, a defendant must be informed of certain constitutionally protected rights. The paper then discusses the significance of "Dickerson vs. United States," a case that challenged the Miranda ruling. This is followed by a discussion of the positive and negative impacts the Miranda rule has had on the criminal justice system, as well as the author's own arguments that pre-Miranda rule on the issue would cause more harm than good and would place a considerable burden on the justice system.
From the Paper
"In 1966, the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, a landmark case that has had far-reaching effects on all aspects of American life. The case sought to reconcile the conflict between law enforcement and individual interests. While the case and its ensuing decision is more complicated, the essential question presented in Miranda asked whether individuals have the right to be informed by the police, before interrogation, of certain constitutionally protected civil rights. Thirty-four years later, in 2000, the decision reached in Miranda was challenged by Dickerson v. United States, which questioned the constitutionality of a 1968 statute. The main issue raised in Dickerson was whether Congress could legislatively overrule Miranda v. Arizona and its guidelines for the admissibility of statements made under custodial interrogation."
| |
|
Miranda Rights, 2005.
This paper presents the history of the Miranda rights (Miranda) especially the period pre-dating its establishment.
1,840 words (approx. 7.4 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the case "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436" (1966) is synonymous with the Miranda warnings given to accused criminals reminding them of their right to remain silent and to an attorney. The author points out that the Miranda cases did not create these rights; under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, defendants already had them; however, many defendants were either ignorant of them or unsure how to exercise them. The paper states that the Miranda requires the police to inform suspects of their rights prior to their interrogations; the failure to follow this process can invalidate the results of otherwise legal confessions.
From the Paper
"While some might agree with the dissent's concerns, the end result of the Miranda controversy tends to indicate otherwise. "Miranda was retried, and this time the police did not use the confession but called witnesses and used other evidence. Miranda was convicted, and served 11 years." In other words, the exclusion of the results of coercive interrogations does not necessarily mean that criminals will go free. However, the fact that the Miranda decision cannot be equated with a license to commit crime does not mean that the Miranda decision did not have a dramatic effect on police procedure. Police departments were inquired to issue the so-called Miranda warnings prior to interrogating a person under arrest. There was controversy as the courts had to determine what constituted arrest and custodial interrogation. The result was that, once a defendant is no longer free to leave or to end questioning, even voluntary interrogations become custodial."
| |
|
Miranda v Arizona, 2006.
A review of the case of Miranda v Arizona, and how Miranda was handled by the Arizona Police.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the case of Miranda v. Arizona. According to the paper, Miranda was arrested by police and taken to the police station. He was repeatedly asked questions about the crime he was to have committed and repeatedly asked for his attorney. The officers handling the case refused to summon Miranda's attorney, and although Miranda's attorney did come to the police station to represent him during the questioning, the attorney was denied access to Miranda for the duration of his stay at the police station. The paper further reports that when Miranda refused to answer questions he was handcuffed and forced to remain in the interrogation room in excess of four hours while the police continued to demand a confession. Miranda finally succumbed to the pressure and confessed to the crime. At no time before, during or after the interrogation process was Miranda informed of his constitutional rights.
From the Paper
| |
|
The Miranda Rights, 2006.
Looks at the case of "Miranda v. Arizona" that established the now famous, Miranda warning.
1,780 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in "Miranda v. Arizona" (1966), laid down by the Warren Supreme Court, to secure a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, the police must advise suspects in custody, before any questioning takes place, of their right to remain silent. The paper also relates the advantages and disadvantages of the Miranda Rights in the areas of custody, mandated warnings, interrogation rights and admissibility of evidence. The paper concludes that the 'Miranda Decision' clearly accomplished its goal by creating a Fifth Amendment right to counsel that is distinct from but closely related to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Overview of the Miranda Decision
The Pros and Cons of the Miranda Rights
Custody
Mandated Warnings
Interrogation Rights
Exceptions and Limitations
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Thus, the rights of the suspect to appointed counsel, the right to silence and the right to non--incrimination are obviously in favor of the suspect. Generally speaking, a suspect does not understand nor is he/she familiar with the methodology involved in an
attorney's actions in court, but with the presence of an attorney, a suspect will be warned what not to say to the police.
"When a suspect remains silent during interrogations, it can be an indication of guilt which further protects the criminal."
| |
|
Miranda vs. Arizona, 2004.
Looks at the meaning, implication, and implementation of the Miranda laws.
3,110 words (approx. 12.4 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 90.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
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)."
| |
|
Miranda V Arizona, 2002.
A discussion of the 1966 Supreme Court decision.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 21 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discussion of the 1966 Supreme Court decision. Contends the ruling was the most politically controversial and socially divisive decision in the history of the Supreme Court. Warren Court decisions in 1960s. Conservative backlash against the Court. Impact of Miranda on law enforcement and police. Later Court rulings on exceptions to Miranda.
From the Paper
"Miranda V Arizona
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..."
| |
|
Miranda Rights, 2004.
An overview of Miranda Rights, how they are seen in the media and in court, and the consequences of the Miranda laws.
1,254 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Miranda vs. Arizona is easily one of the five most significant cases of the 20th century and changed the use of involuntary confession in court. It looks at how there are few elements of law as well-known as the Miranda Rights ,which are recited in every episode of popular television shows, such as "Cops", "Law and Order", "The Shield", etc., and how most people have managed to know them almost completely by heart. It also examines how, more than anything else, it has become virtually impossible for a police department or federal agency to get away with misstating or even foregoing reading a suspect the Miranda rights and how it has helped to create an atmosphere in which people are far more aware of their rights than ever before.
From the Paper
"While it has already been mentioned that the idea of Miranda Rights has become ingrained in the American consciousness, just how that happened should be examined. While Miranda Rights have been mentioned in an almost countless number of feature films, it has been television that has truly popularized the Miranda Rights as people know them today. Most significantly are the programs NYPD Blue and Law and Order, as well as the spin offs Special Victims Unit and Criminal Intent, as well as other programs such as Crime Scene Investigations. In any given episode of any of the aforementioned programs, one could almost lose count of how many times Miranda Rights are actually read, mentioned, used or abused. Most people could learn all they would ever really need to know about their rights if they were to be arrested simply by watching and paying attention to what occurs in these programs."
| |
|
Miranda Decision, 2005.
The pros and cons of the Miranda Rights law.
2,718 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The so-called "Miranda Decision" was very controversial, due to the probe conducted by the Supreme Court into police practices that had previously been concealed from the public and free from the scrutiny of the courts. This paper looks at how conservative critics argued that this decision went too far in creating new rules for the police, due in part to the fact that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not specifically refer to advising suspects of their rights. In contrast, civil libertarians responded by saying that the Supreme Court acted properly in regard to what is required in order to give practical meaning to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. This paper discusses how the "Miranda Decision" contains numerous pros and cons in relation to its legality and interpretation, due to some viewing it as protecting the criminal at the expense of the victims; while others see it as not going far enough to protect the victims instead of the criminal.
Paper Outline:
Section 1: Introduction
Overview of the Miranda Decision
Section 2: The Pros and Cons of the Miranda Rights
Custody
Mandated Warnings
Interrogation Rights
Exceptions and Limitations
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The "Miranda Decision" clearly accomplished its goal by creating a Fifth Amendment right to counsel that is distinct from but closely related to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Both of these "rights" have continued to evolve through the normal process of judicial interpretation, although dissent is always present. Apart from the "Miranda Decision," the more traditional law of the Fifth Amendment's protection against compulsory self-incrimination continues to evolve also. As pointed out by Susan D. Gold, "the Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we must never fail to make the defendant aware of his rights, for if we do, the entire system may collapse under its own weight" (1995, 276)."
| |
|
Miranda v. Arizona, 2005.
This paper is a discussion of Miranda vs. Arizona, which led to great changes in American law regarding police interrogation.
1,038 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the legal case regarding Miranda Rights. It asserts that few events have altered the course of American legal practice more than this infamous Supreme Court case of 1966 that deals with the rights of the accused. Miranda v. Arizona mainly encompasses one's Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate one's self. The paper also discusses how the Miranda decision was a departure from the established law in the area of police interrogation.
From the Paper
"The decision in the Miranda case was a 5-4 split. The five votes in favor of Miranda's argument can be explained relatively simply. The proponents of the decision felt that the right to not give evidence against one's self is a basic right of humans. Thus, those feeling this way voted for Miranda's argument. In contrast, Pre-Miranda view held that questioning a suspect was "indispensable" to law enforcement work.
"The privilege to not be a witness against oneself was not considered applicable to the states at that time. Moreover, the Pre-Miranda view held that a suspect is not being coerced to incriminate himself if there are no legal threats (meaning, that the accused is not threatened with perjury for testifying falsely or contempt for not testifying at all). Thus, the accused was not incriminating himself under this meaning. This accounts for the votes of the opponents of the final decision (Goldman, 1987, pp.704-709)."
| |
|
Miranda V. Arizona, 1992.
An analysis of the political and legal ramifications of the case expanding the rights of the accused and including the impact on the Supreme Court, social and law enforcement aspects and later rulings.
4,275 words (approx. 17.1 pages), 11 sources, $ 135.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Miranda v. Arizona, a 1966 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, required that police officers inform a criminal suspect of his or her basic constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to consult with an attorney, before the suspect may be questioned. Any incriminating statement made after arrest, but in the absence of such a warning, was inadmissible as evidence in a trial. Miranda has been called "certainly the most significant criminal law decision of the Warren era, if not in the entire history of the United States Supreme Court" (Lasser, 1988, p. 191).
It was also one of the most politically controversial decisions in the history of the Court. For conservatives, and indeed for many ordinary Americans, it served to gel the notion..."
| |
|
Miranda V. Arizona, 1987.
Discusses the 1966 Supreme Court decision on suspect's rights to counsel & silence. Examines background, significance, legal need for, provisions, exclusionary rule and effectiveness.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 7 sources, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Perhaps no other ruling of the Earl Warren Supreme Court era has fanned emotions to the degree of Miranda vs. Arizona. Decided on June 13, 1966, the court ruled in Miranda that a confession could not be used in court if the suspect, once in police custody, was not informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent.
In the years intervening between Miranda and today, the ruling has come under considerable fire. Most recently, Attorney General Edwin Meese has publicly stated that the Justice Department will seek to overturn Miranda at the earliest possible opportunity (Baker 134). The purpose of this research is to defend the positions taken by the Warren court in Miranda, and to indicate why the ruling should stand."
| |
|
Dickerson v. United States, 2002.
An overview of Supreme Court Case No. 99-5525 where the police challenged the Miranda Procedures.
2,900 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 14 sources, $ 106.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
For more than 30 years, as a result of the 1966 landmark Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona, police have been required to follow precise wording and timing in advising suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present. The recent Dickerson v. United States case challenged Miranda as a prerequisite to allow a voluntary confession to be admitted as evidence in a federal court, based on a never-enforced 1968 statue nullifying Miranda. The Court ruled Miranda, a Constitutional decision of the Supreme Court, cannot be overruled by Congress. This paper traces the facts of the case and its path to the Supreme Court and identifies the litigants, the main Constitutional Question the Court is being asked to decide, values in conflict and interest groups involved. It also discusses the arguments made on each side, important previous cases in this issue area and the outcome.
| |
|
Interrogating Juveniles without Parents, 2007.
An analysis of the ethical and legal ramifications of interrogating a minor without his/her parents present.
3,149 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the ethics and legality of interrogating juveniles without their parents being present, particularly if the juvenile has requested their presence. It discusses tactics used in interrogations in order to improve the chances of receiving a confession. It then discusses whether there are special Miranda rules for juveniles and the consequences of that. The paper ends by discussing any practical considerations that should be taken into account when dealing with juveniles.
Table of Contents:
Just the Facts
Case by Case
II. The Interrogation
Interrogation Points
Criminal Interrogation Ethics
To Tell the Truth
Juvenile Facts
III. The Presumption of Innocence
BARD
Just the Facts
No Question
Practical Considerations
From the Paper
"Geraghty & Drizin (1999) contend that Judges frequently fail to speak up and propose thoughtful solutions for the senseless injustices they see done to children on a daily basis. Some judges who are empathetic to the new juvenile justice draconian approaches fail to speak out as they support the "get tough" policies. Other judges fail do not verbalize counter thoughts as they are concerned they would inevitably become entangled with the political process and violate the Code of Judicial Conduct's prohibition and foster the impression they lack impartiality. This researcher posits that one daily injustice regularly practiced in the legal system is the interrogation of isolated juveniles."
|
|
|
