| Papers [1-14] of 97 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "MIRANDA ARIZONA": |
|
|
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 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 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 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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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, £ 29.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, £ 29.95
»
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."
| |
|
The Ray Copper Mine In Arizona, 2002.
Discusses the Ray Copper Mine in Arizona and its significance to the state.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the Ray Copper Mine in Arizona. Arizona is the largest producer of copper in USA. There are some other states where copper reserves have been discovered but Arizona by far remains the leading copper-producing state accounting for 65 percent of the total US copper-production. Copper and its by-products represent over 80 percent of Arizona's nonfuel mineral value.
| |
|
Miranda Decision, 2005.
The pros and cons of the Miranda Rights law.
2,718 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 56.95
»
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)."
| |
|
Arizona's 2006 Smoking Ban, 2008.
A review of the smoke free Arizona act and other community health issues.
1,449 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the statute which prohibited smoking in most indoor public places in Arizona. The paper highlights the voter-generated initiative, which generated public support through a wide-spread state-wide advertising campaign that encompassed a variety of media. The paper reports that the initiative was submitted to the public in November of 2006 and as a result the citizens of Arizona overwhelmingly passed Proposition 201, "The Smoke-Free Arizona Act."
Outline:
Introduction
Reason for Selection
Description of the Issue/Problem
Background Factors Contributing to the Issue
Supporting Data to Validate Existence of Problem
Possible Community Health Nursing Interventions
From the Paper
"The voter-generated initiative generated public support through a wide-spread state-wide advertising campaign that encompassed a variety of media, including television, print, and the Internet. The initiative was submitted to the public in November of 2006. The citizens of Arizona overwhelmingly passed Proposition 201, The Smoke-Free Arizona Act. The statute prohibited smoking in most indoor public places including (amongst the most controversial areas) restaurants, bars, gaming facilities such as bingo halls, billiard or pool halls, bowling centers, public buildings, grocery stores or any food service establishment."
| |
|
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."
|
|
|
