Question

What were the main arguments made by the majority and minority justices in Miranda v. Arizona (1966)?

What were the consequences of the Miranda decision for criminal suspects’ rights to silence and to a lawyer?

Answer 1

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the majority opinion held that suspects must be informed of their rights before custodial interrogation. This decision established the rights to silence and to have an attorney present during questioning. These rights, known as the Miranda rights, have significant implications for defendants' constitutional rights.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, focused on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The majority held that any statements made by a suspect during custodial interrogation are presumed involuntary, unless the suspect was informed of their rights beforehand (the Miranda warnings). The minority justices, in their dissenting opinions, argued that the Court had overstepped its bounds and created new constitutional rights.The Miranda decision had significant consequences for criminal suspects' rights. It established the right to remain silent, meaning that suspects cannot be compelled to answer questions during police interrogation. Additionally, it recognized the right to have an attorney present during custodial interrogation. These rights are now commonly known as the Miranda rights, and they form a crucial part of protecting suspects' constitutional rights in the criminal justice system.

Learn more about Miranda v. Arizona (1966)