POLITICAL CLIMATE AND FACTORS THAT INFLUENCES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

QUESTION

• What factors influenced each of these decisions?
  • Read the dissenting opinions as well.
  • Explore to what extent political ideology influences constitutional law.
  • To support your points, identify specific examples in the language of both the decisions and the dissents.
• Examine the political climate when both cases were decided.
  • Look at what philosophical underpinnings may have influenced the thinking of the court of the respective eras of these cases. How did the courts in each era read the U.S. Constitution differently?

  SOLUTION

• Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

  In the year 1890, the State of Louisiana enacted a law which was known as the “Separate Car Act”. The Act stated that all railway service providers in the State must make provisions for separate but equal accommodations for colored races and for whites through two or more than two coaches for each train or by making a partition in each coach so as to make the accommodation separate. Violation of the law invited a fine of $25 or imprisonment for 20 days.

  Homer Adolph Plessy, who was a thirty year old shoemaker belonging to New Orleans, Louisiana and who was 1/8^th black (having an African American great-grandmother), was requested by a political group comprising of African Americans and Creoles to assist them to challenge the Separate Car Act. Plessy bought a first-class ticket to travel from New Orleans to Covington and seated himself in the coach reserved for whites. For this act of his, the railroad officials arrested Plessy for violation of the Separate Car Act. Plessy was represented in the Court by Albion Tourgee, a white lawyer and an advocate for the rights of the black. Plessy argued that the Separate Car Act was violative of the 13^th and 14^th Amendments to the Constitution.

  Plessy’s case was presided over by Judge John Howard Ferguson in the district court. He decided that regulation could be made by the state on railroad companies that conducted its activity within the state of Louisiana. Plessy was held guilty and the Separate Car Act was held constitutional. An appeal was then made to the Louisiana State Supreme Court which affirmed the decision of the district court. Plessy then petitioned for a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States and named judge Ferguson as the respondent because he had been named in the petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

   

   

  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

  Miranda, a poor immigrant from Mexico, lived in Phoenix, Arizona in the year 1963. Miranda was accused of kidnapping and rape and was arrested after the victim of the crime recognized him in a police lineup. He was questioned at length by the police for two hours while being in custody. The officers interrogating him had not informed him of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which are rights against self-incrimination and right to assistance of an attorney. As a result, he ended up confessing to the crimes in writing which he was charged. He also acknowledged in writing that he had knowledge of his right against self-incrimination. During trial, his confession was used the prosecution to have him convicted. He was subsequently awarded a punishment of imprisonment for 20 to 30 years on each count.

  The attorney defending Miranda made an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court arguing that the confession made by him should not be included in trial for the reason that no information was given to him regarding his rights and that there was no attorney present during his interrogation. This was admitted to by the police officers involved in the interrogation.

  It was however argued by the police that since Miranda had faced trial and been convicted of crime in the past, he could be assumed to be aware of his rights. His appeal was denied by the Arizona Supreme Court and the conviction was upheld. The fundamental question in the case was regarding the role which was played by the police in protecting rights of those accused, as guaranteed by the 5^th and 6^th Amendments to the Constitution. The 5^th Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The 6^th Amendment on the other hand provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to have assistance of a counsel for his defense.

  It was held by the Court that the prosecution could not use statements of the accused which stemmed from custodial interrogation unless the interrogation was with the use of the procedural safeguards which were efficient in securing the accused against self- incrimination. It was noted by the Court that “the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented” and that “the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.” The Court went on to specifically outline the essential aspects of warning to suspects, including warnings of the nature of the right to stay silent and the right to have an attorney present during the interrogation.

  What factors influenced the decisions and what was the political climate when these cases were decided?

  Part I

  In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the “Separate Car Act” of the State of Louisiana was challenged as being violative of the 13^th and 14^th Amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Justice Brown, delivering the judgment negated the contention of Plessy.

  The opinion of Justice Brown in the judgment is a clear indicator of the mood of the society of those times. While law has been said to be a tool for social change (Dror, 1970), law is also a mirror to the customs and usages of the society (Twining, 1995). Law of a particular era reflects what is acceptable to and considered rightful by the majority of the society of that particular era.

  It is evident from the words of Justice Brown in the judgment that even while there was an outward display by the State that it considered whites and blacks to be equal, it was neither acceptable to the people nor to the State that blacks mingle with whites in day to day activities. Thus the political ideology followed in the times of Plessy v. Ferguson was to ensure that the law was “separate but equal” (http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/separate-but-equal.html). This political ideology is the essence of the “Separate Car Act” which required whites and blacks to be accommodated separately from each other in a railroad car even though the nature of the accommodation was required to be equal. Thus even while there was an ulterior discrimination against the blacks, the law made an overt attempt to create a sense of equality between the races.

  Justice Brown, in page 543 of the writes:

  “A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races-a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color-has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or re-establish a state of involuntary servitude.”

  The line in boldface letters is a window to the mind of the judge which seems to be totally in favour of the discrimination created by the law. Justice Brown’s use of the words “must always exist” shows that the movement to secure equality between blacks and whites in the society had not gained force until then.

  Racial discrimination in the United States of America was pervasive during the 17^th and 18^th centuries. However, the resentment among people against discriminatory laws which did not give protection to the blacks was ever growing. The 13^th Amendment to the Constitution was made with the purpose to abolish slavery and forced servitude in the United States. However, it did not apply to the blacks living in the southern states. Another attempt was made by way of the 14^th Amendment to protect the rights of blacks in the south. However, this again failed to rout racial discrimination from the south.

  Justice Brown squarely blamed the colored race for assuming that it is discriminated against. He declared:

  “We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.” (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=216)

  A lone dissenting opinion was issued by Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the son of a slave owner from Kentucky and was a former Confederate officer himself (http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/plessy/dissent.html). He showed a more forward way of thinking and a view which is acceptable today. According to him, it was inappropriate to distinguish between citizens on the basis of their race. “Our Constitution is color blind,” he famously wrote, “…all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.” “What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races,” he questioned, “than state enactments which…proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior…that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens?”

  Justice Harlan had a black half-brother who was 16 years senior to him. This is assumed to be one of the reasons why he was sensitive to the cause of blacks. Justice Harlan’s half-brother, Robert Harlan, had bought his freedom for $500 and went on to become Ohio State’s most prominent black Republican. Justice Harlan warned that the Plessy judgment “will in time prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case.”

  Part II

  Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is an important decision which laid down the rights of an accused. This judgment, which is one of the most cited cases in history, was given in the light of increasing number police brutalities upon suspects and accused which led to a forced confession of crime by the accused. The judgment is an evidence of the concern of the courts to respect the rights of suspects and to prevent forced confessions from being used as evidence in favor of the prosecution. The legal issue to be decided in this case was whether it was necessary for law enforcement officials to inform the accused of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and whether statements made by the accused who is subjected to custodial interrogation by the police is admissible during prosecution if he was not given information of his privilege under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/miranda.htm)

  Prior to this judgment, the tests of “voluntariness” or “totality of circumstances” was generally employed by the courts to determine permissibility of an admission by the accused in a criminal matter (Hall, 2005). Decisions were taken on a case-to-case basis as to whether the admission or confession made by the accused would be admissible as evidence in the prosecution. This led to the question of admissibility being decided arbitrarily and on the basis of the amount of pressure the police had exerted on the accused. Where the court could arrive at the conclusion that the accused had not been treated very badly by the police, it would allow the confession made by the suspect to the police to be admissible. Where the situation was otherwise and the accused could demonstrate substantial use of force by the police, confession of the suspect would not be permitted to be used by the prosecution. This vagueness was one of the important factors which should have influenced the decision in the Miranda case.

  The conviction of Miranda was reversed by the Supreme Court in this case. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html) Chief Justice Warren held that when a person is deprived of his freedom, he must be given information of his right to remain silent, must be warned that anything that he says could be used against him in the court of law and informed about his right to have an attorney present during investigation. Once warned, the person may waive his rights at his discretion.

  Dissenting opinion was given by Justice Harlan and Justice White. Justice Harlan felt that the rules were not formed so as to be able to protect suspects from police brutality and other banned forms of coercion. (http://law.jrank.org/pages/8598/Miranda-v-Arizona.html) Justice White was of the opinion that the core of the majority opinion was that compulsion is inherent in custody and no statement made in custody could be produced out of free choice unless protective devices prescribed by the Court are employed. Justice White considered this to be not suitable for the criminal justice system. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZX.html). The dissenting judges were of the opinion that the majority decision in this case was a representation of poor interpretation of constitutional law and could result in consequences which are harmful.

  The decision in this case has been criticized saying that it is biased towards criminals and would hence adversely affect the society and public safety. Ever since the decision in the late 1960s, courts have been trying to balance between the rights of a suspect and safety of the society. The 1970s and the 1980s saw an era where the courts in various cases eased the decision in Miranda and allowed security officials more power to force confessions from the accused without giving them information about their rights as held in the Miranda case. In the year 2000, the decision in Miranda was upheld by the 7 to 2 majority in the matter of Dickerson v. United States where it was held that there was no justification before the court for Miranda to be overruled now that it had become a part of the routine procedure.

  The decision in Miranda shows how courts are increasingly stressing on human rights of the accused. It is often said in the world of criminal justice that even if a hundred criminals are let free due to lack of evidence, not even one innocent man should be punished. The shifting trend is clearly visible from the time before Miranda when the accused was tortured and subject to brutality in order to force him to confess his crime. The Miranda judgment itself faced criticism on the ground that it favours criminals and would be detrimental for public safety. Even then, the decision in Miranda has survived for more than 40 years and this indicates the perception of the courts and judges and the will to ensure a fair trial to the accused which has transformed the Miranda decision into a routine everyday practice to be followed by law enforcement officers.

   

   

   

  Conclusion

  A comparison of the decisions in both cases shows us how decisions of the courts are influenced by underlying situations in the society and broad political ideology. The decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was considered valid in its era because the society then was somewhat racist and the whites were not willing to mingle with the blacks in their day to day affairs. Similarly in the era of Miranda v. Arizona, there was a growing resentment against police brutalities and other forms of torture employed by the police to force confessions out of the suspects. This was an important factor which influenced decision of the Court in Miranda v. Arizona.

   

   

  References:

  1. Dror, Y. (1970). Law as a Tool of Directed Social Change: A Framework for Policy-Making. American Behavioral Scientist March 13: 553-559
  2. Hutchinson, H.G. (2011). Waging War on the “Unfit”? From Plessy V. Ferguson to New Deal Labor Law. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Vol. VII, No. 1, April 2011, pp. 1-46. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1674048
  3. Hall, K.L. (2005). “Miranda v. Arizona.” The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved October 18, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-MirandavArizona.html
  4. Separate but Equal: The Law of the Land. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/separate-but-equal.html
  5. Twining, W. (1995) A Post-Westphalian Conception of Law. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/jurisprudence/docs/others/twi_til_1b.pdf
  6. Wolff, K. From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court Rules on School Desegregation. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from  http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/pubs/A5/wolff.html
  4. Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Retrieved October 18, 2011, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436
  5. Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Retrieved October 18, 2011 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=163&invol=537

   

  Websites (all retrieved October 18, 2011):

  1. http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/separate-but-equal.html
  2. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=216)
  3. http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/plessy/dissent.html
  4. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/miranda.htm
  5. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html
  6. http://law.jrank.org/pages/8598/Miranda-v-Arizona.html
  7. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZX.html

   

• GH70

But you can order it from our service and receive complete high-quality custom paper.  Our service offers “Law” essay sample that was written by professional writer. If you like one, you have an opportunity to buy a similar paper. Any of the academic papers will be written from scratch, according to all customers’ specifications, expectations and highest standards.”