000436264 000__ 03185cam\a2200337\a\4500
000436264 001__ 436264
000436264 005__ 20210513152339.0
000436264 008__ 100305s2010\\\\enk\\\\\\b\\\\001\0\eng\\
000436264 010__ $$a  2010009163
000436264 020__ $$a9780199730902
000436264 020__ $$a0199730903
000436264 035__ $$a(OCoLC)ocn550553983
000436264 035__ $$a436264
000436264 040__ $$aDLC$$beng$$cDLC$$dYDXCP$$dCDX$$dC#P$$dBWX$$dUCDLL$$dMIX$$dEDK
000436264 049__ $$aISEA
000436264 05000 $$aKF9625$$b.W75 2010
000436264 08200 $$a345.73/056$$222
000436264 1001_ $$aWrightsman, Lawrence S.
000436264 24514 $$aThe Miranda ruling :$$bits past, present, and future /$$cLawrence S. Wrightsman and Mary L. Pitman.
000436264 260__ $$aOxford ;$$aNew York, N.Y. :$$bOxford University Press,$$c2010.
000436264 300__ $$axiii, 190 p. ;$$c24 cm.
000436264 4901_ $$aAmerican Psychology-Law Society series
000436264 504__ $$aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
000436264 5050_ $$aSeries foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- 1:  Public image of Miranda and why it is incomplete -- 2:  What led up to the Miranda decision? -- 3:  Decision in Miranda v Arizona -- 4:  Limitations of the original opinion -- 5:  Problems with the comprehension of the Miranda rights among vulnerable suspects -- 6:  Supreme Court decisions since Miranda -- 7:  Police reactions to the Miranda requirements -- 8:  Future of the Miranda ruling -- References -- Index.
000436264 520__ $$aSynopsis:  Where did Miranda go wrong? The purpose of this book is to identify and describe four problems with the implementation of the Miranda decision and to suggest remedies in order to have it achieve its original purpose. The four problems identified in the book are:  1. The justices, in placing restrictions of the questioning of suspects, limited these rights only to those suspects who were "in custody." The term "in custody" is vague-legally vague as well as vague to the layperson. It permits the police to question suspects without giving them their Miranda rights in those settings where it is unclear whether custody is present. 2. The Miranda warnings may not be fully understood by many suspects. There is no country-wide standardization of what is said; there are literally thousands of different versions of "the" Miranda warnings in use by different police departments in the United States. 3. Police training manuals, while recognizing the right to a "Miranda warning," have developed many ways to circumvent giving the warnings or ignoring a response in which a suspect does decide to remain silent or ask for an attorney. 4. In the 40 years since the Miranda law was established, the Supreme Court and lower courts have made decisions eroding their application. Can the original goal of the authors of the Miranda law be salvaged? This book examines the state of interrogations and the state of the law before the Miranda decision was made, the purposes and nature of the decision, and proposes recommendations for reinstituting the original goals.
000436264 60010 $$aMiranda, Ernesto$$xTrials, litigation, etc.
000436264 650_0 $$aRight to counsel$$zUnited States.
000436264 650_0 $$aConfession (Law)$$zUnited States.
000436264 650_0 $$aPolice questioning$$zUnited States.
000436264 7001_ $$aPitman, Mary L.
000436264 830_0 $$aAmerican Psychology-Law Society series.
000436264 85200 $$bgen$$hKF9625$$i.W75$$i2010
000436264 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:436264$$pGLOBAL_SET
000436264 980__ $$aBIB
000436264 980__ $$aBOOK