| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "MIRANDA ARIZONA DICKERSON U S": |
|
|
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, £ 40.95
»
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 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, £ 30.95
»
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
| |
|
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, £ 62.95
»
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, £ 49.95
»
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 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, £ 93.95
»
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, £ 43.95
»
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."
| |
|
The U.S. and the U.N. Rights of the Child Convention, 2002.
This paper discusses why the U.S. hasn't signed the treaty on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
5,060 words (approx. 20.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed examination, written from a legal standpoint, of the treaty on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. The paper concludes the U. S. is willing to intervene in other international problems, such as oil; and therefore, it should make a public statement to protect the world?s most precious commodity, children, by supporting the treaty.
Table of Contents
Introduction
What Is It
What It Protects
What about the Legal Standpoint
Why Is Treaty Needed
Why Won't the U.S. Sign?
Reasons for Signing the Treaty
From the Paper
"While there are many political reasons that the US may refuse to sign the treaty, one of the chief causes for concern might be the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Many UN delegates support the idea of an International Criminal Court but the United States has been steadfast in its refusal to agree. An international criminal court might begin the slippery slope of descent to the power of individual nations when it comes to many issues including the treaty.If the international criminal court gains favor and power in the future it is feasible that the court could be used to enforce the treaty."
| |
|
Multiculturalism in the U.S. and U.K., 2005.
This paper presents an analysis regarding the doctrine of multiculturalism.
904 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses the doctrine of multiculturalism. The writer offers an analysis of why such a doctrine is problematic. In order to examine the issue of multiculturalism, the writer uses examples from the public education systems in the U.S. and Great Britain to show the difficulties in treating all cultures as equal.
From the Paper
"Multiculturalism is defined by the Ayn Rand institute as the view that all cultures are equal. While this doctrine is often adopted in spirit if not in principle in the U.S. and Great Britain, multiculturalism is problematic as a term. For if all cultures are equal we cannot say that there is one superior way of being, one superior set of values or one superior method of educating individuals. However societies like America and Great Britain often adopt such methods values ... "
| |
|
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, £ 39.95
»
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."
| |
|
"China's Economy: U.S. and E.U. Get Tough on Textiles", 2005.
A review of the article "China's Economy: U.S. and E.U. Get Tough on Textiles".
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 5 sources, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
"This paper discusses an article from the Economist Intelligence Unit, a publication of The Economist, entitled "China's Economy: U.S. and E.U. Get Tough on Textiles" as it relates to the price pressures on apparels in the U.S. market. These issues are examined from a macroeconomic perspective with an emphasis on Keynesian and neo-classical macroeconomic theory.
From the Paper
"Following the end of quotas on textile imports from China as of 1 January 2005, both the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) have witnessed a massive influx of textile imports from China: "U.S. imports of Chinese clothing swelled in January, a rush of new products following the end of international quotas that for decades had limited global apparel trade" (Chinese, 2005, para.1). While increases have been across the board, three categories in particular have seen huge increases: cotton knit shirts, blouses and cotton trousers, and these have been targeted for renewed protectionist quotas by both the US and the EU (China, 2005, para.2). "
| |
|
The U.S. in Texas: U.S. Support of the Texas Revolution, 2000.
Discussion of the many political and social reasons the U.S. entered the battle for independence and eventual statehood in Texas.
1,260 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 7 sources, £ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Texas has added many economic, political and strategic advantages to the United States. But Texas was not acquired by the simple task of colonization and claim; Texas was fought for and won from the Spanish Empire by the people of these United States. They did not enter this conflict without reason or resolution; they entered this battle for independence and eventual statehood for many political and social reasons. First, the already great abundance of United States immigrants in the Spanish State of Texas, or Tejas, at the time of the revolution aided in the approval in action by the U.S. Secondly, the comparisons of the citizens of Texas predicament to the United States? own revolution also aided in the agreement on U.S. initiative. Finally, the American dislike of the Spanish Empire and its wish to dissolve its influence in North America aided as well in American entrance into the affairs of the Texas Revolution."
| |
|
The U.S. and the E.U, 2003.
An examination of the differences between the United States of America and the European Union.
690 words (approx. 2.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 16.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the organization and intent of the European Union differs from the organization and intent of the United States of America. It looks at the development of the E.U.'s original intent to a broader sociopolitical scope and the economic and sociopolitical dimensions of the organization of the United States.
From the Paper
"McCormick states that the original purpose of the European Union was to promote trade links between member countries which is still one of its main functions. However ..."
| |
|
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, £ 41.95
»
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."
| |
|
Child Poverty in Arizona, 2007.
This paper discusses the high child poverty levels in Arizona, U.S.
1,542 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 10 sources, MLA, £ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper relates that child poverty, high school education and health insurance are widely recognized as the standard indicators upon which the social health of a country is measured. The paper reveals that all the above statistic indices are unfavorable in the case of Arizona. The paper provides a brief overview of childhood poverty and the current statistics for Arizona. The paper analyzes the social factors that contribute to child poverty and looks at the growing social problem of drug abuse. The paper contends that alleviating childhood poverty should not just be a slogan, but a high priority issue.
Outline:
Thesis
Introduction
Arizona: Childhood Poverty (Statistics)
Poverty and Drugs
Other Social Indicators
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The United States is undoubtedly one of the best-developed nations in the world. Equal is its strategic might with its military presence in innumerable countries across the world. Amidst all these achievements and high standard of life style that the nation enjoys, it seems ironic that the US also bears the dishonour of being the worst among developed nations when it comes to the number of children affected by poverty. Children are the future of any nation and hence their proper overall development is of utmost importance. Nationwide, Arizona alongside Louisiana and Mississippi continues to suffer from high child poverty rates with disturbing consequences for the youth."
|
|
|
