Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup 1
Abstract
Two landmark Supreme Court cases that explore different parts of police practice and other
rights of individuals include Terry v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona. Both were vital in clarifying
what polices officers must do in order to do their jobs and how and when people have a right to
be afforded their rights. These rulings are historic and we will look at two articles which further
describe these ruling and how they are being interpreted today. Stop and frisk was a huge win for
police officers doing their jobs, helping keep communities safe. Others, however, considered this
method to be racist and biased against minorities, especially against Black and Hispanic people.
The role of this method in policing remains intensely contentious and achieving a balance that
does not prevent police from carrying on their activities lawfully is exceptionally difficult. Most
Americans recognize the Miranda warnings, and most think they know the rights that apply to
them. The most shocking thing, and perhaps not surprising at all, is that a majority of people still
do not understand Miranda rights, particularly speakers of English as a second language.
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup 1
Article Critique
Various components of the criminal justice system work together to fulfill a common
purpose and adapt to the shifting terrain of society. It takes perseverance to plan for optimum and
compliant outcomes, and this may come with challenges, including safety concerns. Law
enforcement officials are required to advise suspects of their rights prior to an arrest. This
process is referred to as the Miranda Rights, which is an important step, because it protects the
due process and constitutional rights of an individual who is being brought into custody (Masters
et al., 2024). These rights, enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, include the right to
remain silent and the right to legal counsel. Although some people may know their rights, most
citizens do not; this is mainly due to confusion regarding practices like Stop and Frisk, as well as
repeated infringement of their Miranda rights. Public support for measures that would limit the
operational scope of law enforcement only exacerbates this lack of awareness . Everyone has the
right to be treated with respect and dignity.
Article 1-Background
According to Ridgeway (2017) in the article "STOP-AND-FRISK IS ESSENTIAL...
AND REQUIRES RESTRAINT.” stop-and-frisk can be effective in crime prevention when
properly utilized. It references important legal cases such as Terry v. Ohio and Floyd et al. v.
City of New York, to study the legal limits and impact of stop-and-frisk. Emphasizing the
potential for abuse, Ridgeway calls for strict oversight and accountability to ensure that stops are
conducted fairly and objectively. He offers programs like greater police training, clear guidance,
and extensive tracking systems to improve the practice (Ridgeway, 2017). Ridgeway backs a
compromise solution that leverages the benefits of stop-and-frisk while upholding personal
rights.
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup 1
Article 1 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
According to Ridgeway (2017), there are many benefits to the stop-and-frisk policy,
which he claims can be easily maximized when properly administered. This article argues that
stop-and-frisk can be part of the crime solution, but only if these stops are based on reasonable
suspicion and conducted to the highest standard of quality. There is a wealth of historical data in
cities like New York that shows whenever stop-and-frisk is actively enforced, rates of violent
crime plummet (Ridgeway, 2017). This allows officers to naturally interact with individuals,
which ultimately enhances public safety by discouraging future criminal enterprises, preventing
crimes, not just responding to them after the fact. Conducted in a professional and respectful
manner, stop-and-frisk can build trust in the community. Ending discriminatory practices and
grounding stops on proper, articulated suspicion will maintain public trust in the police
(Ridgeway, 2017).
Weaknesses
The piece has a number of weaknesses. For one thing, there is not nearly enough
evidence to say stop-and-frisk is reducing crime. Studies show that the stop-and-frisk practices
do not correlate with crime reduction as proponents say (Browning & Arrigo, 2020). Second, the
paper lacks nuance on the implications of stop-and-frisk for civil liberties, in particular as to
whether the practice violates individuals’ rights under the Fourth Amendment against
unreasonable searches and seizures. It seems odd for those considerations not to have been taken
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup 1
into account, especially given that the person in question would be serving in law enforcement
where knowledge of legal and ethical implications is paramount.
Article 2-Background
The essay “An Illusion of Understanding” by Pavlenko et al., 2019, notes that even native
speakers often struggle to understand their Miranda rights. Non-native speakers, for example,
face additional linguistic and cognitive challenges that complicate the problem even further
(Pavlenko et al., 2019). It evaluates the effectiveness of the Miranda Rights understanding tool in
predicting levels of understanding among L2 speakers. It questions whether these are adequate
approaches, which are normed with native speakers, for non-native speakers. Results have
important forensic implications as false interpretations of Miranda Rights may affect the validity
of waivers and confessions (Pavlenko et al., 2019). The report calls for better measures to ensure
that all people, regardless of language ability, fully understand their rights.
Article 2 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
Pavlenko et al. point out several notable strengths of “An Illusion of Understanding.”
(2019). This research reflects a significant step forward in both our understanding of how native
and nonnative speakers interpret Miranda rights. The methodology used is comprehensive and
thus highlights the complexity of the task of mastering legal discourse. Furthermore, it adopts an
empirical data approach to compare insights across native English speakers and competent L2
speakers which strengthens the evidence-based characteristic of the findings and ultimately
strengthens the validity of the outcomes (Pavlenko et al., 2019). Moreover, its interdisciplinarity
drawing on linguistics, law, and psychology enables a nuanced analysis that has far-reaching
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup 1
implications. Together, these factors make this study a legitimate and meaningful addition to the
existing literature to better understand language and its connectivity with the law, especially
when it comes to a fundamental maxim of the law; that any right must be available for all.
Weakness
Two key deficiencies of Pavlenko et al (2019) “An Illusion of Understanding” are that
they heavily based on standardized examinations like the Miranda Rights Comprehension
Instruments, created by native speakers and normed on native populations. Such reliance may
not consider the complexities of understanding among second-language users and can therefore
provide an inadequate assessment of their comprehension of Miranda rights (Pavlenko et al.,
2019). Furthermore, the sample of capable L2 speakers on which the study's results are
predicated may limit the generalizability of the results to other populations of non-native
speakers with diverse levels of English proficiency or differing language distance. These
constraints imply that although the paper unearths important results, improving the methods used
and expanding the study could further supplement the understanding substantially.
Summary of Articles
Before questioning a suspect, the police must inform them of their rights as outlined by
Miranda and respect their right to due process (Masters et al., 2024). New York Police officers
officially ceased the stop-and-frisk method following allegations of racial profiling. Pavlenko
succeeds in conveying the difficulties that non-native English speakers have with fully grasping
their Miranda rights as well as the circumstances under which those rights may be waived.
Drawing on the real-life experiences of those who lived and some who lost their lives in tragic
circumstances under the weight of police bias and contempt, Ridgeway illuminates what life
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup 1
was like in New York City during the stop-and-frisk era: Although there was considerable racial
bias in the application of stop-and-frisk, that bias was not the underlying issue to be addressed
and mitigated within the police hierarchy.
Conclusion: Personal Reflection, Position, and Christian Worldview
Those two articles focus on preserving rights and due process, which makes me think of
Micah 6:8 (KJV). “He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of
you, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” A great reminder for
anyone who wants to live a life of virtue and in accordance with the divine will. It offers a clear
and concise instruction for believers, outlining how they should conduct themselves and deal
with others. In this verse, three worldviews are combined: the worldview of justice, the
worldview of kindness, the worldview of humility, and which of them is more precious in the
sight of God. One of the main themes in this verse is fairness. To act justly had in every area of
life, a call to fair and righteous behavior. It urges people to act right; be truthful and just and do
their best to operate within righteousness and justice through whatever they do or decide. This is
in line with the Biblical principle of retributive justice and represents God’s desire that His
followers be vessels of justice and equity in their community.
The conduct of law enforcement officers greatly impacts the community as they are a key
element in enforcing legal standards. When law enforcement is equitable, they build trust in the
community. This is crucial to effective policing because people are more likely to work with law
enforcement and inform them of criminal behavior. All people deserve to be treated with dignity
and respect. Statutes and ethical standards require law enforcement officials to act without bias
or favoritism. These principles are key for justice system integrity. When the police are felt to be
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup 1
fair and impartial, public faith in the judiciary increases (Masters et al., 2024). Such confidence
is crucial to the functioning of society as a whole.
References
Browning, M., & Arrigo, B. (2020). Stop and Risk: Policing, Data, and the digital age of
discrimination. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(2), 298–316.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09557-x
Masters, R., Way, L. B., Gerstenfeld, P. B., Muscat, B. T., Hooper, M. K., Dussich, J. P. J., &
Skrapec, C. A. (2024). CJ: Realities and Challenges.
King James Version. Bible Gateway, www.biblegateway.com
Pavlenko, A., Hepford, E., & Jarvis, S. (2019). An illusion of understanding. International
Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.39163
