Civil Rights and the Rights Revolution since World War II

Among the most controversial rights upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960s were the rights of persons accused of, charged with, and convicted of crimes. Recall that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, fully half of the Bill of Rights, deal with the rights of the accused. Although five of the first ten amendments to the Constitution deal with the rights of the accused, Supreme Court cases involving accused or convicted criminals had been comparatively rare throughout the Court's history prior to the 1960s.

One of the major Court rulings in this area was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), in which the Court ruled that persons charged with crimes were entitled to legal representation during their trial, even if they could not afford to hire a lawyer. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that the accused are entitled to the assistance of counsel. The following year, the Court ruled that suspects were also entitled to have a lawyer present while being questioned by police.

The most controversial of the Court's rulings, however, came in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), in which the Court ruled that police officers were required to inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, before questioning them about a crime. Informing suspects of their rights is called issuing a Miranda warning. Some Americans felt that the Court had tipped the balance in favor of suspected criminals and made the work of police officers more difficult. Their dislike for the ruling was compounded by the rise in crime rates, which soared in the 1960s. The Miranda ruling remained unpopular for decades. In 2000, however, the Supreme Court upheld the Miranda ruling, saying that it had by now become an established part of American law and culture.