The so-called "Miranda
Decision" was very controversial, due to the probe conducted by the Supreme Court into police practices
that had previously been concealed from the public and free from the scrutiny of the courts. This paper looks at how conservative critics argued that this
decision went too far in creating new rules for the police, due in part to the fact that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not specifically refer to advising suspects of their rights. In contrast, civil libertarians responded by saying that the Supreme Court acted properly in regard to what is required in order to give practical meaning to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights. This paper discusses how the "Miranda Decision" contains numerous pros and cons in relation to its legality and interpretation, due to some viewing it as protecting the criminal at the expense of the
victims; while others see it as not going far enough to protect the victims instead of the criminal. Paper Outline: Section 1: Introduction Overview of the Miranda Decision Section 2: The Pros and Cons of the Miranda Rights Custody Mandated Warnings Interrogation Rights Exceptions and Limitations Conclusion