To begin our research, we used the Internet as our primary method for finding sources. We started with simply searching for information about our topic on Google. Using this strategy, we had some luck finding strong sources, which helped us to discover the major topics that we would be researching. One of the best sources we found this way was an article on the United States Court's website, which provided a thorough description of all four trials that made up the Miranda v. Arizona decision. In later research sessions, we expanded our research method by using the library database. We were able to find several useful sources this way, including a fascinating article by Laurie L. Levenson, which described how the Miranda decision has been altered since the trial. This source was crucial in writing about the long-term effects of this case. We then extended our search to books, and also began finding more primary sources and images. After gathering a wide variety of sources, we began to thoroughly read through them and take notes on the information. After doing so for only a few sources, we realized that much of the information was repetitive. For example, multiple sources provided a detailed explanation of exactly what the Miranda Warning guarantees. As a result, we shifted our research strategy, and only took notes on the information that was unique to each source. We soon decided that our topic was too broad, and ultimately decided to limit our topic to solely the Miranda rights and the Miranda v. Arizona court case, rather than all of the rights of the accused (which was our original topic). Since we narrowed our topic, we had to do some additional research on our more specific questions. We finally began considering potential interview subjects, such as a police officer, judge, or lawyer, and formed questions we would be interested in asking them. We drafted formal e-mails proposing a phone or written interview, and sent them to many possible subjects. We receiving only one reply from a lawyer, Jennifer Cancian, who gave us some good insight to our topic. We then went ahead and started putting together our argument. After creating an outline that included a timeline and a diagram, we were able to produce our argument in an organized and logical way.
The category of project that we chose to do was a website, as it allowed us to be creative and organized, and was thus the most appealing to both of us. We felt that we were able to thoroughly explain our argument by dividing it up into different sections on the website, and were then able to enhance it by adding visuals. On our website, we included a section explaining what rights Americans possessed before the trial, and explaining the issues with this lack of rights. We then provided a section thoroughly explaing the crime, the arrest, the trial, and the verdict that constituted Miranda v. Arizona. Finally, we identified and explained both the short and long-term effects of the case. In doing so, we formed an organized structure to our website to support our argument.
The Miranda rights deal with the rights of individuals, as they are basic rights possessed by every American citizen. After the Miranda decision occurred, many protested the verdict, as they argued that these new rights would allow guilty criminals to escape. Many other trials also occured in succession to the Miranda trial, which served to slightly alter the initial decision. However, despite heavy criticism and minor modificaitions, the Miranda rights are still in place today because it is the Constitutional responsibility of police and government officials to inform the accused of their rights. The rights that emerged from Miranda v. Arizona have become a fundamental piece of basic American rights.
~Claire Barbehenn and Erin Dietz
Example of a Case Study essay on Law about:
television / Miranda warning / Supreme Court / disabled woman
The essence and the major issues of the Miranda Warning case.
What is the essence of the Miranda warning case? In what way do TV show participants should follow the Miranda Warning? What the Supreme Court decision rightful?
Being “Mirandized” means that a suspect is read a list of his rights, which basically resemble the next: the understanding that anything the persons says may be used against him in Court, his right to keep silence, the right for an attorney and others.
Miranda warning Essay
Introduction: Nowadays there have been a lot of new television projects dealing with the confession in different crimes made by ordinary citizens. People may consider these programs to be “conscience-relievers”, nevertheless the participants have still committed crimes and this fact must not be forgotten by any means. These kinds of programs have caused a lot of negative reaction from the side of the law enforcements.This is especially due to the fact that even after a confession people are not arrested because they have not been “Mirandized” before their speech. Being “Mirandized” means that a suspect is read a list of his rights, which basically resemble the next: the understanding that anything the persons says may be used against him in Court, his right to keep silence, the right for an attorney and others. An only after this lists of right the suspect chooses whether to speak or not to speak at all. According to this list those criminals that admit or confess of a crime without being read their rights remain free and do not take responsibility for what they have done.
I personally feel a little confused by this warning. This is primary due to the understanding that some cases are too “heavy” to throw them out just because the criminals have not been read their rights. In these cases I consider it to be appropriate to make Miranda work “automatically”” if there is any evidence supporting the criminals statements. Almost every single phenomenon concerning law enforcements has exceptions. This is why I believe that the Miranda warning should be automatically applied to those television participants who confess of dangerous crimes, because it is impossible to say whether they really did it or if they just wanted to be on TV. It is not just to through out cases just for the reason that the right has not been read and I think that the field of using the Miranda warning needs some revision.To show this on practice it is not necessary to go into the depth of crime history but just to turn to the case that is widely known - Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona, which happened in 1963. Mr. Miranda was accused and then confessed of kidnapping and raping a young, mentally disabled woman. The fact that Ernesto Miranda was not told that he could use a lawyer or silence the Supreme Court.
Conclusion: Court decided that the confession of Mr. Miranda must not be considered to be an evidence of the crime. After this case Miranda Warning saw the world, nevertheless Mr. Ernesto Miranda was lately arrested because certain evidence was found. This means that the Miranda warning does really need revision because while staying free Mr. Miranda could have killed some other people. So the decision is obvious – either TV confession must be cancelled which will make criminals come to police and not on TV or the Miranda warning must by applied automatically in certain types of cases. All the details and exceptions need to be discussed in the Supreme Court.It is important to note that a confession on TV is usually made to make people feel sorry for the criminal. And a crime is not something to be sorry of but a fact to take responsibility for. And if certain changes need to be made then why not to carry them out?
1. The Miranda Warning - The U.S. Constitution Online
2. The Miranda Warning details
3. The Mystery of Miranda