Source A Claim: The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona established necessary protections for those accused of crime. Source B: Dissenting Arguments (Two Supreme Court Justices disagreed the majority decision in Miranda v. Arizona and this an excerpt from their opinion on the case) There can be little doubt that the Court's new code would markedly decrease the number of confessions. To warn the suspect that he may remain silent and remind him that his confession may be used in court are minor obstructions. To require also an express waiver by the suspect and an end to questioning whenever he raises objections must heavily handicap questioning by the police. Furthermore, to suggest or provide counsel for a the suspect simply invites the end of the interrogation. How much harm this decision will inflict on law enforcement cannot fairly be predicted with accuracy. We do know that some crimes cannot be solved without confessions....The social costs of crime are too great to call the new rules anything but a hazardous experimentation... Which argument from Source B counters the claim in Source A? Responses How much harm this decision will inflict on law enforcement cannot fairly be predicted with accuracy. How much harm this decision will inflict on law enforcement cannot fairly be predicted with accuracy. To require also, an express waiver by the suspect and an end to questioning whenever he demurs (raises objections) must heavily handicap questioning. To requ