From time to time, the Supreme Court blows it big time.
Take Dred Scott v. Sandford, or Plessy v. Ferguson, when they upheld pro-slavery and pro-segregation policies, respectively. As the last-ditch go-to deciders for legal matters, the Supreme Court justices have a heavy burden of responsibility. Since in most cases there are no backsies once the Supremes have made their decision, we can only hope they get it right.
But what's right and just isn't the same for everyone, even the justices of the Supreme Court. There are two sides in every trial, and when the Supreme Court makes a decision, someone is going to get burned. Even though their decisions are grounded in legal history and their knowledge of the Constitution, justices have their own interpretations about what the Constitution says about rights and responsibilities.
In Miranda v. Arizona, everyone on the Court heard the same arguments, but they came to different conclusions about what was really justice for Ernesto Miranda.
Questions About Interpretation of Law
- What was the 1960s Supreme Court's view of justice, and how does that view compare to today's?
- Is justice still done if a Supreme Court's decision (like in Miranda v. Arizona) results in a criminal going free?
- The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona resulted in strict rules for police, and more protections for suspects. Does the Miranda ruling get in the way of police dealing out justice?
Chew on This
In creating the Miranda Warning, the Supreme Court made it clear that justice in America is as much about protecting the criminal as it is the public.
According to the Supreme Court, justice is about following the Constitution and holding its rights and freedoms to be more important than the actions of a few criminals.