The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)<span> required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be </span>informed<span> of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights. </span>
<span>The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence or testimony obtained illegally or in violation of the constitution from being used against the defendant in court. </span>
<span>The </span>Miranda<span> ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for </span>Berghuis v. Thompkins,<span> 08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must </span>invoke<span> his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than </span>waive<span>it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation). </span>
Im going to assume its because a "lame duck" session only happened when congress meets after a election.
The Civil War started because Abraham Lincoln was against slavery even though he had slaves and plus it also happened because of him signing the Ammendment of being against slavery even though he still had slaves.
The correct answer is Stalin held little regard for individual rights.
This is evident from the passage because he refers to achieving security (safety) meant depriving individuals of their freedoms. This reference shows that Stalin was more worried about controlling all of the elements within a society rather than protecting the rights of individual citizens.
