Question

PLEASE I NEED HELP! i need it right now

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 confession 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

The statement in the transcript appears to be effective in terms of logos, as it presents a logical argument to support the position taken. The speaker begins by stating the thrust of their position, which is that a valid confession does not require the presence of counsel or its waiver. They assert that the Fifth Amendment should not be interpreted as requiring counsel to be present at the time of confession, providing a logical basis for their position. While acknowledging the division of opinion in the Miranda case, they emphasize that the issue of requiring counsel's presence during interrogation is not a matter of constitutional dimension but can be addressed through legislative and judicial policy. The speaker supports their argument by stating that the claim of a constitutional requirement for counsel during confession is unsound in constitutional terms. They suggest that the assistance of counsel at the pre-arraignment stage is better dealt with in the legislative and judicial realm rather than being imposed as a constitutional requirement. By distinguishing between constitutional dimension and matters of legislative or judicial policy, the speaker presents a logical framework for evaluating the issue. They rely on logical reasoning and legal interpretations to support their argument, making a case for their position that goes beyond personal opinion. Overall, the statement effectively employs logos by presenting a reasoned argument, addressing constitutional claims, and suggesting alternative avenues for addressing the issue of counsel's presence during interrogation.

Answer 2

The statement provided does not strongly demonstrate effectiveness in terms of logos, which refers to the logical appeal of an argument. While the speaker outlines their position and contention regarding the requirement of counsel during confessions, they do not provide substantial logical reasoning or evidence to support their claim. The statement mainly focuses on asserting their stance and addressing the constitutional dimension of the issue rather than presenting a robust logical argument.

The speaker mentions that the constitutional claim of requiring counsel during confessions is unsound but does not provide specific reasoning or legal precedents to support this assertion. They also mention a division of opinion and significance regarding warnings given during the Miranda case, but again, they do not provide detailed analysis or logical arguments to support their position.

Furthermore, the speaker acknowledges that rules about requiring counsel during interrogations and confessions might be wise and beneficial, but they argue that these matters are more suitable for legislative and judicial policy rather than being considered constitutional issues. However, they do not provide explicit logical reasoning or evidence to substantiate this claim.

To enhance the effectiveness of the statement in terms of logos, the speaker should provide more logical reasoning, legal precedents, and empirical evidence to support their position and counterarguments. By presenting well-reasoned arguments and backing them up with logical evidence, the statement would be more persuasive and effective in terms of logos.