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? Responses The Miranda ruling changed the rules of the game in significant ways. The new rules stopped the infamous "third degree"...physical coercion in the form of beating a suspect with a rubber hose for example. Police investigations on the whole are more professional The decisions ensured a fairer balance between individual rights and the state's interest in criminal prosecution