CJUS 500 Corrections (Essay Sample)

Article Critique Name University Class # Professor Name Date Abstract The Fifth Amendment has been advantageous to the innocent in Court cases. It connotes that defendants cannot take witness stands during the trial and have the right to an attorney. Therefore, the amendment helps people from compelling any incriminating statements. There is a broad range of protections for individuals who face criminal prosecutions. The articles “Investigating the effects of repeated Miranda warnings: Do they perform a curative function on common Miranda misconceptions” and “An Introduction to Fifty Years of Gideon” analyze some of the cases that demanded the Supreme Court acknowledge the need for an attorney during trial. There is a coherent relationship between the criminal justice system and agencies, including law enforcement. This paper looks at the two articles' contents and their presenting strengths and weaknesses, as well as a personal stand on the Fifth Amendment. Article Critique “Investigating the effects of repeated Miranda warnings: Do they perform a curative function on common Miranda misconceptions” and “An Introduction to Fifty Years of Gideon” are among the many articles encompassing criminal justice integration. Each of the pieces satisfies the aims of the course, which focuses on the relationship between the organizations and agencies in the criminal justice system. They look at the courts, corrections, legislation, law enforcement, and the community to pursue justice. The first article assesses the Miranda v. Arizona case, whereas the second article looks into Gideon v. Wainwright case. Miranda and Gideon cases are explicit depictions of the need for an attorney in the current criminal justice system. Article 1-Background “Investigating the effects of repeated Miranda warnings: Do they perform a curative function on common Miranda misconceptions” is an article that specifically looks into the action of the Supreme Court of the US and the police on the realized outcomes integrated into a current study. In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the defendant was supported as she had the right to have an attorney during questioning. Furthermore, the author insists on the need for such defendants to be informed of their constitutional rights, including self-incrimination. Specifically, the interrogation process breached the constitution's Fifth Amendment (Rogers et al., 2013). The current research is based on Miranda warnings and Miranda rights. The study from three jail centers concluded that Miranda warnings maximize Miranda knowledge while reducing Miranda beliefs. Article 1 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article Strengths The article is written straightforwardly. There are no confusing facts in the case analysis and the study. For instance, Miranda warnings and Miranda misconceptions are critically analyzed and explained (Rogers et al., 2013). It is published in a journal and cites the most relevant facts to the case. Additionally, the article is organized such that there is a logical flow. It utilizes headings and sub-headings, which effectively guide the audience through the conclusion. Within the sub-headings are various strong examples that support the subject matter. In combination, these strengths give the article more credibility and reliability in its use in research. Weaknesses The article, however, has many repetitive facts, which makes the author seem more insisting on his points. For instance, the terms Miranda warnings and their definitions are repetitively made throughout the article (Rogers et al., 2013). Furthermore, the author misses on citing some of the ideas that are not his own. This creates a challenge of misconception and assumptions. As such, the article is not precise and accurate to the point. For instance, the abstract does not clearly define the aim of the research. Therefore, a reader may not distinguish between the facts presented about the case and the research involving three jails. Article 2-Background “An Introduction to Fifty Years of Gideon” is also a criminal law document that looks into the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. The author documents the Supreme Court’s decision that people have the right to an attorney despite their financial status. Even with the case surrounding Gideon’s intention to commit a misdemeanor, it was expected that he would show up with an attorney. The issue is still relevant today as defendants ought to appear with attorneys despite their financial incapability to retain lawyers. This replaced the right to appointed assistance (Tomkovicz, 2013). Presently, any prosecutions demand that defendants have an attorney with them regardless of their ability to sustain them financially. Article 2 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article Strengths The article is rich in knowledge, especially with the processes that happened in the Gideon v. Wainwright case. There is a rich history and the legal facts surrounding the case that led to the approval of the need for an attorney. The article is also coherently arranged into titles and subtitles, with each section explaining the subject matter. Unknown information is also well-cited in the piece, making it highly credible and viable. The author seems to understand the underlying concepts of law because it was published in the IOWA journal (Tomkovicz, 2013). While statistics are not provided, every piece of factual information is relevant to the topic. Weaknesses There is a lack of integration of facts and data from the events during the trial. Therefore, there is a difficulty in comparing the points from the case with the facts presented in the article. The paper is also confusing, especially when comparing the Gideon v. Wainwright case to other topics such as McMann v. Richardson (Tomkovicz, 2013). Most of the underlying facts are not comparabl...