Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on The Miranda Rule. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 5 page report discusses the merits of the 1966 Miranda Rule. Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436) was a landmark Supreme Court case that dramatically affected police investigations, particularly in the definition and scope of the terms 'detention' and 'custody,' as well as protection against self-incrimination. Recent criticisms of Miranda fail to take into account the great good it has accomplished over the past three decades. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_BWmirand.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
the facts" on the black and white "Dragnet" to "Starsky & Hutch" to "NYPD Blue," the average citizen knows what "read im his rights" or "mirandize him" means. The Miranda
Rights offer the assurance that any person being arrested understand that he or she has the right to stay quiet, that if they say something it can be used against
them, and they have the right to an attorney whether they can afford one or not. Recently, the Miranda Rule has come under some criticism. Those making the criticisms
claim there are a variety of problems with the Rule. Regardless of those arguments, Miranda remains an essential aspect of assuring equal treatment of suspects by law enforcement, as
well as a key factor of the American ideal of justice. The Basics of Miranda Miranda versus Arizona (1966) was a landmark Supreme
Court case in 1966 that dramatically affected police investigations, particularly in the definition and scope of the terms detention and custody, as well as protection against self-incrimination. The Supreme
Court held that custodial interrogations create a psychologically compelling atmosphere that countermands the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination. Accordingly, the Court developed the now-familiar Miranda warnings as a means
of reducing the compulsion associated with interrogations taking place with a suspect in custody. The Supreme Court has recognized that Miranda warnings are not constitutionally mandated. However, the warnings are
a protective measure designed to safeguard the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Consequently, violations of the Miranda rule do not carry with them the same force and effect as
a constitutional violation. Arguments Surrounding Miranda According to Brienza (1999), the Fourth Circuits in February of 1999, ruled (2-1) that an obscure 1968 federal law actually "trumps" the historic
...