Judicial Politics

Many scholars accept that the process of judicial decision making has an impact on the politics and society of any region. This impact can be seen in the case of the American judiciary. However, scholars differed regarding the exact nature of this impact on the American politics and society. In this essay, an attempt is made to assess and review the views of various scholars regarding the diverse nature of this impact of American judiciary on the politics and society.

The essay chiefly depends on the empirical information obtained from some of the judicial decisions and an attempt is made to discuss the positive and negative impact of these decisions on American polity and society. Analysis The judicial decision making process has an impact on the various aspects of the politics and society. Few decisions of the American courts have influenced the legislative process. The judicial decisions have attracted the attention of social communities and media, which have discussed regarding the positive and negative impact of the judicial decisions on politics and society.

In this essay, we take up the famous case of Miranda v. Arizona, the implications of which have been discussed by the various scholars. Few scholars did not find that ‘Miranda warnings’ had any negative impact on politics and society while there are other scholars who firmly believed that this had negative impact on the method of interrogation by the Police since the hardcore criminals were given the rights called Miranda rights which were misused by them to escape from the police investigation. Few scholars also believed that this case gave support to those who fought for the civil rights of individuals.

This implies that they considered the Miranda judgement as an important step in protecting the civil rights of American citizens. Thus, we find different viewpoints regarding the impact of judicial decisions on American polity and society. The impact of judicial decisions is seen in the famous Miranda v. Arizona case, which provided for few changes in the powers of the police. This case related to the investigation conducted by the police regarding the crimes of sexual nature committed by Miranda who was interrogated by the police and Miranda confessed that he had committed the sexual crime.

In this judgement, the court ruled that while interrogation, the police should have informed Miranda regarding various statutory rules relating to voluntary confession. According to this judgement, only voluntary confessions with certain technical specifications are accepted as valid and since Miranda had accepted that he had voluntarily confessed to the police regarding the crimes committed by him, he was found guilty. The judges perceived that this case has something to do with the Fifth Amendment, which gave certain guidelines regarding the procedure of confession and the rights of the accused person.

Obviously, these provisions were included in the Fifth Amendment to safeguard the interest of the innocent people who were charged with civil and criminal offences. The ‘Miranda Warnings’ were given to the persons who were interrogated by the police. They consisted of the warnings such as: “You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned; if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before you answer any questions.

”(Cassell, 15) In this case, court also imposed additional waiver and other restrictions on the investigations by the police. Cassell argued that based on these principles at any time of investigation, the accused could ask a lawyer to be present during the course of interrogation and this could completely halt the process of investigation and interrogation. These provisions of this landmark decision forced the political parties to counter them by passing legislations, which reduced the harmful effects of this decision. (Cassell)