2. How did Miranda v. Arizona change the standard for admissibility of confessions and admissions? In your opinion, is it a change for the better? Explain your answer.

It prevented confessions and admissions given without the defendant being aware of their fifth amendment right from being admissible in court.

Explanation:

Background: The Miranda v. Arizona considered three other cases in addition to Miranda v Arizona. All four of these cases involved interrogations carried out in police custody without informing the defendants of their 5th Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves.

Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda gave a written confession which got him sentenced to 20-30 years in jail. He appealed it at the Supreme court of Arizona and the judgement was upheld.

Supreme Court Judgement: However, the supreme court reversed this judgement, and held that the Fifth Amendment right covers court hearings as well as interrogations.

This started the custom of reading the Miranda warning to arrested suspects that while in police custody, they have the right to remain silent, what they say can be used against them in court and they have the right to an attorney who may be appointed for them if they cannot afford one.

In my opinion, this was a good thing. It lets defendants know that they can stay quiet until they consult a lawyer.

answer; the automatic system because it is a "gut reactor"  

answer; /// the above statement is (true );