Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on The Miranda Ruling. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4 page paper provides answers to the following questions in relation to the Miranda Ruling: What requirements does it place on law enforcement? How has it changed the manner in which law enforcement interviews are conducted? This paper also offers an opinion based on the research as to whether Miranda has harmed or helped the criminal justice system. Finally, the paper considers whether the Miranda Rule should be suspended with reference to the interview of terrorist suspects. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: MH11_MHmiranda.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
listed below. Citation styles constantly change, and these examples may not contain the most recent updates. The Miranda Ruling by
M. Hall, 9/2010 -- properly! The 1966 ruling in the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona resulted
in directives for the treatment of suspects I the criminal justice system. Prior to the decision, questions were raised about the nature of interrogations, the rights of suspects and
the obligations of law enforcement officials to protect the civil rights of suspects. Since the Miranda decision, major changes have occurred in the methods for protecting civil rights within
the criminal justice process, though some believe the Miranda decision has allowed many criminals to go free. What requirements does it place on law enforcement? The Miranda
decision defines specific requirements for the action of law enforcement personnel at the time of arrest and during criminal interrogations. The 1966 decision defined the limits of what police
could do during questioning, including the protocols for the treatment of criminal suspects prior to and during interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona had focused on protections of Fifth Amendment rights,
designed to safeguard that: Prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court;
he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent,
a lawyer will be appointed to represent him (Miranda v. Arizona, 1999, p. 1). When Justice Warren offered his opinion in the Miranda case, he stated that the underlying
...