Miranda v. Arizona was just one of several similar cases heard by the Supreme Court. At issue was the following question: Do the police have the right to question individuals without first informing them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination as outlined in the Fifth Amendment? The Court ruled five to four that such practices do violate the defendant’s constitutional rights and compared coerced confessions to an earlier era in which police might use physical force to elicit a confession. What do you think was meant by the Court’s finding, “The modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented…the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition,” that was included in the majority opinion?