The Mapp, Escobedo, And Miranda Decisions: Do They Serve A Liberal Or A Conservative Agenda

Abstract

During the 60s, several major criminal cases were decided in the defendants favor by the United States Supreme Court. Following each decision, politicians, law enforcement officers, and lay persons decried the actions of the court for handcuffing law enforcement. Moreover, these critics charged, and continue to charge today, that the Supreme Court was favoring accused/criminal rights at the expense of society and victims. The purpose of this paper is to reexamine three decisions— Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), and especially the anathematized Miranda v. Arizona (1966)— that upset law enforcement officers and political officials and to determine if the critics' fears were warranted. A reexamination of the decisions reveals that the United States Supreme Court had legitimate reasons for ruling as it did. Furthermore, Miranda v. Arizona, the most vilified of the three decisions, has had border ramifications for all citizens beyond the narrow view commonly held by Miranda's critics.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.