Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Dickeson v. U.S. (2000) Term Paper

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Dickeson v. U.S. (2000) - Term Paper Example It takes time and consumes a lot of it in this case to ensure equity and transparency in their awarding of their judgments. This is because justice must be seen as served to the parties in the most professional way possible based on the facts in a given case. A case study of the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966 and Dickerson v. U.S. case in 2000 reveals that the Supreme Court did not reverse their ruling or rather their decision. Judges ideologies helped a big deal in reaching the ruling, because judges had to explore different options for them to stay the ruling or reverse it altogether. When rights of suspects and how police do their prosecutions comes into discussion, it changes the approach to the whole story. Judges have to look deeper in the case to understand every single detailed based on their ideologies and possible scenarios should they determine the case in a certain way. Quoting the Miranda’s conviction which was overturned, the court made it clear about what should happen if the suspect chooses to exercise or practice their rights. The judges upheld that how an individual practices their rights, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others, should not be a case of a court scrutiny. The Martin Quinn scores indicate that the Supreme Court’s decision on Miranda Vs Arizona was a liberal judgment as it is marked with a negative. The approach which was brought during the court proceeding by his Court appointed Attorney was that Miranda was not given the chance of requesting for an attorney which the Supreme Court indicated that it should have been an option from the Police Department. This ruling from the Supreme Court of Arizona has therefore set precedence for other cases. It was a difficult case for the judges to make a determination, based on the public interest the case had attracted, but they had to observe their professional ethics and make a determination. It is clear from the above case that judges play a