This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Alexander, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

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

Ohio State University

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.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. E. Smith The Rehnquist Court and Criminal Justice: An Empirical Assessment Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, May 1, 2003; 19(2): 161 - 181. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. E. Smith Turning Rights Into Symbols: The U.S. Supreme Court And Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Policy Review, March 1, 1997; 8(1): 99 - 117. [Abstract]

				R. Alexander Jr. Victims' Rights And The Son Of Sam Law: Implications For Free Speech And Research On Offenders Criminal Justice Policy Review, December 1, 1992; 6(4): 275 - 290. [Abstract]

				R. Alexander JR A Curious Legal Anomaly: Female Inmates Could Have The Right To Vote--But Not Male Inmates Criminal Justice Policy Review, December 1, 1991; 5(4): 335 - 346. [Abstract]

				R. Alexander JR The United States Supreme Court And An Inmate's Right To Refuse Mental Health Treatment Criminal Justice Policy Review, September 1, 1991; 5(3): 225 - 240. [Abstract]