Alito's Attack On Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than It Seems By Mark Stern

Argument Analysis:

The article“ Alito’s Attack on Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than it Seems” written by Mark Stern, a senior writer who focuses on law and court, discusses the potential issues that may arise from Justice Alito's opinions and the Supreme Court's decision to take steps towards overruling Miranda v. Arizona. The conservative majority ruling in the Vega v. Tekoh decision resulted in a court ruling to declare that suspects who are being taken into custody no longer have the conditional right to be read their Miranda rights. Stern argues that this decision reduces the safeguards and protection against involuntary confessions, reduces the potential assistance for wrongly convicted inmates, and is likely to result in further attacks

Tekoh impacts the safeguards against unintentional and involuntary confession. I agree with Stern’s claim and believe that the removal of the Miranda warning requirement could lead to higher rates of coerced and involuntary confessions. The first reason I support this claim is that Miranda Warnings provide suspects with the information needed in case they want a lawyer. If a suspect does not know they have the right to legal representation, they may not receive the proper legal assistance they need to protect and defend themselves from incrimination. A suspect's right to a lawyer can help them stay informed about what can and cannot incriminate them due to legal guidance and representation. Through the disclosure of rights and encouragement of legal counsel, Miranda warnings provide a suspect with the opportunity to have legal representation to help protect them from unintentional or involuntary confessions. Legal representatives can provide protection against deceitful interrogation and potential violations of their rights. The second reason I support the argument is that Miranda V. Arizona prevents susceptible individuals from being influenced by forceful or deceitful interrogation tactics that aim to manipulate suspects into providing information or confessions. In many situations, police officers and other law enforcement officials will attempt to lie and manipulate a detainee into providing information.

Arizona. In his article, Stern was able to clearly articulate his claims and provide supporting evidence for his arguments. One of the reasons Stern’s claim was effective and clear was his use of the organization. In his introduction, he quickly identifies the main topic of his article regarding the direct attack of the Supreme Court and Justice Sam Alito made Miranda rights. Following the introduction, the author provided the necessary context and background information the reader needs to fully understand his claims. With the essential background provided, Stern continued his article with an analysis of the Vega v. Tekoh decision and the potential consequences that could follow. Stern’s organization was logical and allowed the reader to follow the thought process behind his claims. An additional component of Stern’s article that increased the article's overall effectiveness was the use of context. Stern provided a well-contextualized examination of the supreme court's decision. The author speaks on the historical significance of the Miranda V. Arizona's case and the role it has played throughout history. In his article, Stern provided context regarding the initial implication of the Miranda warning requirement and the purpose it served. Stern provided further context by speaking on the relationship Miranda rights