Talk:Miranda v. Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.
Miranda v. Arizona is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Bad Link

The third link in the external linksection does not work can someone either fix it or delete it. i'm only a user and don't want to undermine whoever worked on this page.

I've fixed the link. I'm not actually sure the link should be kept, but at least it works now. Thanks for noticing. Mike Dillon 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There appears to be significant vandalism and gibberish added to this article, see the nonsense in the header and the "bacon raping monkeys" Would a maintainer mind clearing this up ?

I agree. in writing a report i found "poop in my mouth" which when i looked at the history the vandal undid someones revision to cover this up. somehow they put it in without it being visible in the edit page thing. anyone that cares about this page please help with this 207.69.138.143 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)concernedhighschooluser207.69.138.143 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you must have seen a cached version of the page. I reverted the "poop in my mouth" comment about an hour after it happened and the IP address that did the vandalism did nothing too tricky. That's why you didn't see the comment in edit mode. My apologies that you viewed the article during the window where it had the offensive text. Thanks for attempting to clean it up. Mike Dillon 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again...

Okay, I'm back, and this month I'm going to add in the points I tried to make in December until someone named Noah Peters claimed that my exposition lacked NPOV.

If Noah or anyone else doesn't like my edits, please reply on this page.

--Coolcaesar 04:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changed Coolceasar's edits: I think you have misunderstood the dissenting opinions. They did not believe that Miranda would end interrogations, only that they would become more difficult. And anyway, that was not the main basis for the dissents, whose main point was that the Miranda warnings were not compelled by the Fifth Amendment.

--User:Blasphemous (inserted by Coolcaesar, please sign your edits on discussion pages in the future)

I just reread the opinion on your mom. I concede you are correct in that both dissents focused on an originalist analysis of the Fifth Amendment, and that both justices stated only that Miranda would at least make interrogation more difficult, although they did not flat out state that it would as a certainty destroy police interrogation.

However, both dissenters did have that outcome in mind as a likely worst-case possibility. Harlan wrote: "To suggest or provide counsel for the suspect simply invites the end of the interrogation." And White strongly implied that the majority was motivated by a purpose to shut down interrogations: "The rule announced today will measurably weaken...the criminal law...It is a deliberate calculus to prevent interrogations."

--Coolcaesar 20:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For discussion: Why is this in the article?

I don't know why this was in the article. It was here when I joined WP and I expanded it. Perhaps you're right that it can stay out. --Coolcaesar 09:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was in the article to give background to the decision. You cannot understand why Miranda came down when it did if you do not understand the political movements which led to it. SC decisions are not bolts of lightening that strike without warning or context. I choose not to delete MPLX's nonsense on Hugo Black; he should leave factually accurate things alone. MPLX has no understanding of American legal history, his agenda seems to be to superimpose his own interpretations of English history on the U.S. Supreme Court. And, it is just massively hypocritical for MPLX to take this action when he has added an entire extraneous section to Hugo Black with lots of dubious information from interviews conducted with Black's wife and son and opinions written by other justices to now step in as the defender of streamlined articles. I am putting it back in.

Also, I am the main author of several articles on Supreme Court justices, including William O. Douglas, Baker v. Carr, Byron White, Lewis Powell, and many other outstanding articles. I have not "ruined" any articles, unlike MPLX, who has poisened Hugo Black with his unsupported revisionism and terrible writing skills (including several mispellings, grammatical errors, etc.) Apparently, the stereotype about Brits being more literate than Americans is not always true.

199.111.227.122Blasphemous
This text does not belong in an article about the Opinion handed down. MPLX/MH 05:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Uh, I added a lot of that text. Okay, maybe, to be consistent with WP style, many of those cases probably should be broken off into separate articles and appropriate "See also" links added. But as any criminal defense lawyer will tell you, those cases are relevant to Miranda because they reflect how it is actually applied today, nearly 40 years later. It is easy for inexperienced laypersons to get the wrong ideas about modern criminal procedure if they just read Miranda in isolation.
Miranda is a complex case with many nuances to it; if interpreting Miranda was easy, I doubt the Supreme Court would have had to revisit it so many times. Many conservatives (including Scalia or Thomas, I think) have argued that the frequency of Miranda appeals is a strong reason to return to the old mushy voluntariness-of-the-confession rule, since that fact demonstrates that Miranda was no better as a bright-line rule than the old rule it replaced). --Coolcaesar 09:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because the issue is being raised on Wikipedia on a few articles, there needs to be a more precise encyclopedic review of subject material. In some instances POV is substituted for NOPOV critical thinking/review and in most instances all of the mush is sans reference material for sources. In other words "stuff" is being tacked on to articles like shanty town add-ons. The only way to avoid revert wars (which I avoid) is to prune back to the basics and build from there. A lot more pruning still needs to be done on the Miranda article which had been constructed around promoting someone's POV book, rather than placing a picture of Miranda at the top of the article. A lot more needs to go and this article should be rebuilt with many excerpts taken from Miranda itself and even substituting the first page of the Opinion for Miranda's picture which should come second. The picture of the book does not really belong at all unless all book pictures are uploaded. As for the text there right now, it is a rambling mess written by others - not the Supremes, whose work it supposed to be about. Miranda was a one time event when a decision was made and an Opinion published. That is what THIS article should be about. MPLX/MH 14:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After thinking about what you said very carefully, I think I may have to concede your point that this article had too much junk in it about the case's background and subsequent developments; you are probably right that the average encyclopedia reader is interested only in the holding itself of any given case. I also agree that there needs to be extensive rewriting of the article.
However, I still feel that the relevant subsequent cases should be linked to at the end through appropriate "See also" links. --Coolcaesar 11:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not just poor Mr. Miranda's confession

There does not appear to be any mention in this article of any elements of the three other conjoined cases, beyond naming them, nor how this federal constitutional question arose regarding a purely state prosecution, nor any mention of Due Process, which is fundamental to application of the U.S. Constitution to state procedures, through the 14th Amendment (other than the latter being included in Categories). Lupinelawyer 04:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freaky links?

This is really beginning to bug me. Maybe there's no option, but I'd love to see article links that goto the subject at hand. Like, in an article on Olympic hockey, the Canada link goes to the National Team & its record (not the damn country!), or here, Clark link goto his dissent, not his bio. Whatsay? Can do? Trekphiler 19:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV!

Jeez, could you quote more of White & his screed? This is so POV I can't believe it. I'm deleting:

In some unknown number of cases the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity. The real concern is not the unfortunate consequences of this new decision on the criminal law as an abstract, disembodied series of authoritative proscriptions, but the impact on those who rely on the public authority for protection and who without it can only engage in violent self-help with guns, knives and the help of their neighbors similarly inclined. There is, of course, a saving factor: the next victims are uncertain, unnamed and unrepresented in this case.

Trekphiler 19:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miranda warning

It seems like there should be a link to the Miranda warning article in the lead paragraph, since that is what this case is best known for. Mike Dillon 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism again

There is more vandalism and some errors in grammar in spelling in the case entry.

Please fix!

There's still bits of racism and vandalism inserted maliciously into this article...I'm delving into the history to see if I can find who did it, report any IP's or usernames, and right as many wrongs as I can. Sheesh, I look this up for Government Homework and now I'm doing extra credit, haha--JohnProctor 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for helping out, it's always needed and appreciated. delldot | talk 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Should a redirect be created from Miranda law to this page, or is that too much of a stretch? I wanted to ask folks with more familiarity with the topic. Thanks, delldot | talk 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We lost half the article to vandals and no one caught it for TWO MONTHS!

I just noticed that we had lost the entire "Subsequent developments" section I wrote most of. I have since restored it by reverting back to the last good version on 10 December 2006. The article needs to be protected ASAP because it is being vandalized on a daily basis. --Coolcaesar 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

I don't think that the redlinked SCOTUS tests and relatively obscure cases need to be red links; if they are created, they should be linked but, as it stands, they're just an eyesore. I'll leave this up for discussion for a day or two, but then I think I'll go ahead and remove them (not the text, just the brackets causing them to be redlinked). Thanks, -Bwowen is now a Forgone conclusion! t|c 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake?

It think the majority opinion was given by Warren, and not "Smith"; correct me if I'm wrong

-AP US History student