Throughout my reading and understanding of the court cases Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) decided on during the Warren Court era, I have observed significant disagreements regarding the interpretation of American freedoms and the proper approach to law enforcement amongst the majority and dissenting Justices of the time.
It was held by the majority ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines that kids do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker v Des Moines: "The students' freedom to symbolic speech was honored by the Court's decision in favor of those who displayed black armbands at school in protest of the Vietnam War. Writing for the majority, Justice Fortas explained …show more content…
Arizona, challenging the majority's determination to establish Miranda rights. Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion raised questions regarding the real-world effects of the Miranda decision on police enforcement procedures. Justice Harlan stated that the majority's ruling could obstruct efficient criminal investigations and placed needless demands on law enforcement officers. He warned against judicial overreach in directing police practices, arguing that the Fifth Amendment already offered sufficient protections against forced confessions. Justice Harlan worries about how the majority's decision will affect law enforcement procedures in the real world. He claimed that the Miranda ruling would make it more difficult for police officers to investigate crimes and would place burdensome duties on them. The importance of autonomy for states and each state's right to establish its own criminal justice systems was underlined in Justice Clark's dissent. He maintained that the Miranda ruling by the majority violated state autonomy to establish their own guidelines for police questioning, “In this way we would not be acting in the dark nor in one full sweep changing the traditional rules of custodial interrogation which this Court has for so long recognized as a justifiable and proper tool in balancing individual rights against the rights of society...(Miranda v Arizona).” Justice Clark's worries about judicial overreach were mirrored in Justice White's dissent. He maintained that the Miranda ruling by the majority was an unjustified encroachment on the authority of legislative and law enforcement authorities. Justice White questioned whether Miranda rights were still necessary, arguing that coerced confessions could be prevented by the already-existing constitutional safeguards. He voiced doubts about the Miranda warnings' ability to accomplish
It was held by the majority ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines that kids do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker v Des Moines: "The students' freedom to symbolic speech was honored by the Court's decision in favor of those who displayed black armbands at school in protest of the Vietnam War. Writing for the majority, Justice Fortas explained …show more content…
Arizona, challenging the majority's determination to establish Miranda rights. Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion raised questions regarding the real-world effects of the Miranda decision on police enforcement procedures. Justice Harlan stated that the majority's ruling could obstruct efficient criminal investigations and placed needless demands on law enforcement officers. He warned against judicial overreach in directing police practices, arguing that the Fifth Amendment already offered sufficient protections against forced confessions. Justice Harlan worries about how the majority's decision will affect law enforcement procedures in the real world. He claimed that the Miranda ruling would make it more difficult for police officers to investigate crimes and would place burdensome duties on them. The importance of autonomy for states and each state's right to establish its own criminal justice systems was underlined in Justice Clark's dissent. He maintained that the Miranda ruling by the majority violated state autonomy to establish their own guidelines for police questioning, “In this way we would not be acting in the dark nor in one full sweep changing the traditional rules of custodial interrogation which this Court has for so long recognized as a justifiable and proper tool in balancing individual rights against the rights of society...(Miranda v Arizona).” Justice Clark's worries about judicial overreach were mirrored in Justice White's dissent. He maintained that the Miranda ruling by the majority was an unjustified encroachment on the authority of legislative and law enforcement authorities. Justice White questioned whether Miranda rights were still necessary, arguing that coerced confessions could be prevented by the already-existing constitutional safeguards. He voiced doubts about the Miranda warnings' ability to accomplish