Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Landmark Court Case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page paper which examines the case and its controversial ruling from historical and contemporary perspectives and considers its impact upon American government and society. Bibliography lists 7 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TG15_TGmiranda.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
not originate with Sergeant Joe Friday on the television series Dragnet, but were articulated by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren in his opinion on the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona court
case (384 U.S. 436). This case has been mired in controversy ever since, lauded by some as a landmark in social liberties and human rights while condemned by others
as another liberal attempt to allow criminals to escape punishment. Miranda v. Arizona and the firestorm it ignited reveals much about the problems that have plagued Americas government and
society from the beginning. This court case reflects ethnic and social prejudices that still influence how the wheels of justice turn and illustrates how judicial ambiguity can be both
a blessing and a curse. Dating back to the 1880s, the Supreme Court has made several attempts to prevent the criminal justice system from being abused (Skene, 1991). In
the 1910 case of Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 373, the Supreme Court ruled that it was the responsibility of the judiciary to ensure that constitutional rights were
not compromised or ignored in any way. The Decision stated, in part, "Our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be. Under any other
rule, a constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have little value, and be converted by
precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas. Rights declared in words might be lost in reality. And this has been recognized. The meaning and vitality of the Constitution have developed
against narrow and restrictive construction" (Miranda v. Arizona, 1999, p. 1). Despite the well-intentioned Court, abuses and inequities continued to exist within the system, and were particularly
...