Quick Question about U.S. History?
I really need help with this one question. If you know the answer, please feel free to answer!
The question is:
'Did the Warren Court go too far in protecting the rights of the accused? Why or why not?'
Okay, everyone is saying it did go too far. But the answer i'm looking for is how did it go too far?
And if it didn't go too far, then why didn't it?
I'm so confused :(
Help would be truly appreciated!
- Needful SinnerLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
I have no idea based on personal knowledge [being Canadian and not great in school to begin with lol] but this is what I found online...
"Important decisions during the Warren Court years included decisions holding segregation policies in public schools (Brown v. Board of Education) and anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia); ruling that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut); that states are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and cannot ignore them (Cooper v. Aaron); that public schools cannot have official prayer (Engel v. Vitale) or mandatory Bible readings (Abington School District v. Schempp); the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona) was dramatically increased; reading an equal protection clause into the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe); holding that the states may not apportion a chamber of their legislatures in the manner in which the United States Senate is apportioned (Reynolds v. Sims); and holding that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright)."
> I'd assume if someone is devoutly Christian, of if the USA is based on 'Christian principles' such things as no bible readings or prayer in public schools could eventually lead to a banning of all things Christian, or singular in region in general - eg not even Christmas or anything pertaining to it permitted to be celebrated or displayed in public buildings.
Also "In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) the Court held that the Sixth Amendment required that all indigent criminal defendants receive publicly funded counsel (Florida law at that time required the assignment of free counsel to indigent defendants only in capital cases); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) required that certain rights of a person interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney (often called the "Miranda warning").
Warren was privately outraged at what he considered police abuses that ranged from warrantless searches to forced confessions.
Conservatives angrily denounced the "handcuffing of the police." Violent crime and homicide rates shot up nationwide in the following years; in New York City, for example, after steady to declining trends until the early 1960s, the homicide rate doubled in the period from 1964 to 1974 from just under 5 per 100,000 at the beginning of that period to just under 10 per 100,000 in 1974. Controversy exists about the cause, with conservatives blaming the Court decisions, and liberals pointing to the demographic boom and increased urbanization and income inequality characteristic of that era."
> Some argue by imposing too many laws on the police and justice system, the criminals and not the public are the ones who benefit most, with the priority being on criminals rights vs societies.
Hope those two help :)Source(s): Warren Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court