The Miranda ruling--along with other landmark Warren Court decisions, such as Mapp v. Ohio (forbidding admission of illegally obtained evidence) and
Gideon v. Wainwright (providing attorneys for poverty stricken criminal defendants)--changed the rules of the game in significant ways. The decisions
ensured a fairer balance between individual rights and the state's interest in criminal prosecution. For the most part, supporters of those decisions say,
the new rules stopped the infamous "third degree" by police during interrogations--physical coercion in the form of beating suspects with a rubber hose,
for example or plunging a suspect's head into a toilet. Occasional cases of brutal police interrogations still make the news, but police investigations
overall are more professional and physical abuse has declined, longtime observers say.
CLAIM: The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona established necessary protections for those accused for a crime.
Which argument from Source A supports this claim?
what answer