Question

The following transcript comes from the monumental 1966 case of Miranda vs. the State of Arizona. The result of this case required police officers to inform anyone

being arrested of his or her rights to an attorney. Read the statement and then answer the question that follows:
Now, may I just state what the thrust of our position is, very briefly, before indicating likewise its limits and why we are taking this position? Our contention is that
insofar as these cases present a constitutional claim that a valid confession cannot be taken unless counsel is present or has been waived, that that claim in
constitutional terms in the constitutional dimension is not sound. In other words, Justice Black's question we would answer in the negative. The Fifth Amendment
cannot, and should not be read as requiring counsel to be present at the time the confession is taken. I will come to my reasons for that very presently. [...]
In the Miranda case that's just been argued, there is obviously division of opinion about the characteristics of the defendant about whether the warning which Mr.
Justice Fortas' questions were directed to was given at a meaningful stage-what the significance of that warning is, in legal terms. [...]
Secondly, may I make it quite clear that we are not saying that new rules about requiring counsel to be present when an investigation is taken-when an interrogation
is made or a confesA-sion taken-we are not saying that such rules are necessarily unwise, without merit. We say that these are not matters of constitutional
dimension. But we do not say that they might not be very wise rules to adopt. In fact, we are saying that this whole problem of the assistance of counsel at the pre-
arraignment stage can, we think, be more appropriately and perhaps better dealt with in the legislative dimension and in the area of judicial policy, rather than on
purely constitutional terms.
In one paragraph of five to eight sentences, evaluate whether the statement is effective in terms of logos. Use evidence from the statement to support your
answer. Use proper spelling and grammar.

Answer 1

What was the result of the Miranda vs. the State of Arizona case?
The result of the Miranda vs. the State of Arizona case required police officers to inform anyone being arrested of his or her rights to an attorney.

Answer 2

Here is my evaluation of the statement in one paragraph:

Though this statement attempts to argue against requiring police officers to inform suspects of their rights to an attorney during interrogation, it is not completely effective in its reasoning. While the statement acknowledges that such rules may be “wise,” it insists they are not “constitutional” in dimension, claiming instead they should be determined through “legislative” and “judicial” means rather than constitutionally. However, the statement provides little concrete evidence or logical reasoning to convincingly support this position. It makes declarations about what the Constitution “cannot” and “should not” require but does not establish why informing suspects of their rights would undermine the Constitution. Overall, the statement relies more on assertion than evidence, weakening its effectiveness.