Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Dickeson v. U.S. (2000) - Term Paper Example

26th February An Approach to Establish Why the Supreme Court Failed To Reverse Their Ruling In every ruling by the Supreme Court, it is important for a student or any other interested party to understand the justice’s ideologies. This is because the ideologies shape their behaviors and play a significant role in determining the outcome of a given case. The Martin Quinn scores help a big deal to measure the relative position of the U.S Supreme Court’s judgments and verdicts on their cases. There are politics in there and arriving at a consensus on various pertinent cases is not just a walk in the park, several ideologies must be put into consideration by the judges.

It takes time and consumes a lot of it in this case to ensure equity and transparency in their awarding of their judgments. This is because justice must be seen as served to the parties in the most professional way possible based on the facts in a given case. A case study of the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966 and Dickerson v. U.S. case in 2000 reveals that the Supreme Court did not reverse their ruling or rather their decision. Judges ideologies helped a big deal in reaching the ruling, because judges had to explore different options for them to stay the ruling or reverse it altogether.

When rights of suspects and how police do their prosecutions comes into discussion, it changes the approach to the whole story. Judges have to look deeper in the case to understand every single detailed based on their ideologies and possible scenarios should they determine the case in a certain way. Quoting the Miranda’s conviction which was overturned, the court made it clear about what should happen if the suspect chooses to exercise or practice their rights. The judges upheld that how an individual practices their rights, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others, should not be a case of a court scrutiny.

The Martin Quinn scores indicate that the Supreme Court’s decision on Miranda Vs Arizona was a liberal judgment as it is marked with a negative. The approach which was brought during the court proceeding by his Court appointed Attorney was that Miranda was not given the chance of requesting for an attorney which the Supreme Court indicated that it should have been an option from the Police Department. This ruling from the Supreme Court of Arizona has therefore set precedence for other cases.

It was a difficult case for the judges to make a determination, based on the public interest the case had attracted, but they had to observe their professional ethics and make a determination. It is clear from the above case that judges play a significant role in determining how a case is likely to end whether they are liberal or conservatives. They ensure that the accused is not interrogated if they are not willing through choosing to remain silent as was the case with Miranda’s case. Judges, through their ideologies which shape their behaviors, determine interrogation cannot be carried out if the accused has requested for attorney.

An attorney must be available for the interrogation to continue. Works Cited Bailey, Mark W. Guardians of the Moral Order: The Legal Philosophy of the Supreme Court, 1860-1910. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2004. Print. Schmalleger, Frank. Miranda Revisited: The Case of Dickerson V. U.s. and Suspect Rights Advisements in the United States. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 2001. Print. Vander, Hook S, and Yale Kamisar. Miranda V. Arizona: An Individuals Rights When Under Arrest.

Minneapolis, MN: ABDO Pub, 2013. Print.