Nevertheless, the decision did not much change the substantive doctrine of voluntariness. In some subsequent cases, the Court revolutionized State criminal procedure and the constitutional law of confessions by applying the right to counsel and self-incrimination clauses to the States. In Escobedo vs. Illinois, the Court held that a suspect has a right to be assisted by counsel during police interrogation; and in Miranda vs. Arizona, the Court subjected custodial interrogation to a system of procedural safeguards. A basic tension exists between the desire to read Miranda as a set of prophylactic rules and the desire to read it as constitutionally required. In trying to compromise two conflicting goals -- protecting dependents and helping police protect society by facilitating investigation -- the Court has been inconsistent in its approach, has done great harm to principled jurisprudence, and has established unfortunate precedents that may be followed. A comment on this analysis is provided. 90 footnotes.