asked 80.1k views
19 votes
5. In recent years, the Miranda decision has been criticized by some persons as protecting

the rights of criminals and neglecting the rights of crime victims. Do you agree or
disagree with this point of view? Why?

asked
User Dbustosp
by
7.4k points

1 Answer

7 votes

Final answer:

The Miranda decision ruled that suspects must be read their rights before being interrogated to protect their constitutional rights. The decision seeks to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victims.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Miranda decision, made in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, ruled that suspects must be read their rights, known as the Miranda warning, before being interrogated by authorities. This ruling aimed to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. While some criticize this decision for protecting the rights of criminals and neglecting the rights of crime victims, it is necessary for a fair judicial system to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victims.

answered
User LuAndre
by
7.5k points
Welcome to Qamnty — a place to ask, share, and grow together. Join our community and get real answers from real people.