Civil rights play a crucial role in promoting equality, justice, and the well-being of all members of society, regardless of their background or circumstances. Though taking a look back into American history, this system of equality is not always attended to as it was. For what seems minor and inalienable, a lot has been sacrificed and given to attend to the basic rights guaranteed to every citizen of the US today. The Civil Rights Movement stood as a beacon of hope, igniting a revolution that reshaped America’s very identity. The civil rights movement in the United States began primarily in the mid-20th century, driven by the African American community’s struggle for equality and justice. It was fueled by decades of racial discrimination,
…show more content…
Wainwright (1963), Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) all collectively illustrate how the Supreme Court protected the rights of Americans, in the sense of criminal justice and the rights of the accused, by continuing to guarantee them key constitutional principles. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled to provide assistance and counseling to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford an attorney of their own, hence extending the 6th Amendment right of the defendant. By ensuring that even financially unstable defendants have legal representation, the court aims to uphold the principle of fairness and the right to a fair trial- regardless of one’s financial means-(Doc 5). Along with the case of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, Escobedo, had been denied his 6th Amendment right to counsel during police interrogation. His request to speak with his lawyer while being questioned by police was repeatedly denied. The Court held that the denial of Escobedo’s right to counsel contributed to his confession, making it invalid as evidence, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of individuals during police questioning (Doc 6). Similarly, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court established the famous “Miranda rights,” which require law enforcement officials to inform individuals of their constitutional rights before questioning them in police custody. This case involved Miranda, who confessed to a crime during police interrogation without being informed of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court ruled that Miranda’s confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and established the now-familiar Miranda warning to protect individuals’ rights during police interrogation (Doc 7). In all three of these cases, the Supreme Court’s decisions strengthen the protections guaranteed to individuals accused of
Wainwright (1963), Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) all collectively illustrate how the Supreme Court protected the rights of Americans, in the sense of criminal justice and the rights of the accused, by continuing to guarantee them key constitutional principles. In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled to provide assistance and counseling to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford an attorney of their own, hence extending the 6th Amendment right of the defendant. By ensuring that even financially unstable defendants have legal representation, the court aims to uphold the principle of fairness and the right to a fair trial- regardless of one’s financial means-(Doc 5). Along with the case of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, Escobedo, had been denied his 6th Amendment right to counsel during police interrogation. His request to speak with his lawyer while being questioned by police was repeatedly denied. The Court held that the denial of Escobedo’s right to counsel contributed to his confession, making it invalid as evidence, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of individuals during police questioning (Doc 6). Similarly, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court established the famous “Miranda rights,” which require law enforcement officials to inform individuals of their constitutional rights before questioning them in police custody. This case involved Miranda, who confessed to a crime during police interrogation without being informed of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court ruled that Miranda’s confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and established the now-familiar Miranda warning to protect individuals’ rights during police interrogation (Doc 7). In all three of these cases, the Supreme Court’s decisions strengthen the protections guaranteed to individuals accused of