U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2019, 04:51 PM
 
Location: AZ
2,360 posts, read 490,975 times
Reputation: 1032

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
(patiently)

Read what you quoted.
What I quoted was nonsensical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2019, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,558 posts, read 4,302,713 times
Reputation: 5007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
Rather abhorrent a convicted rapist was the basis for the Miranda warnings.
But the question was, would he have been convicted if he had been apprised of his constitutional rights before being interrogated?

Police interrogations aren't fuzzy bunnies and cotton candy, people have and do admit to things they never did. Further there's no requirement for the police to provide you true information during an interrogation, they can lie like Walter Mitty, but any responses you make to those falsehoods can be used in court.

If the police can't gather evidence sufficient to convict without your admission, you have to raise serious doubts they're pursuing the right person. Let's not forget, a wrong conviction permits the actual perpetrator to avoid justice for those crimes.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules Infractions & Deletions Who's the moderator? FAQ What is a "Personal Attack" What is "Trolling" Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 04:56 PM
 
33,313 posts, read 17,049,960 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
They put a passage into the Constitution that clearly wasn't in it.
No, they didn't.

OK, let's start with the basics.

The US legal system is a common law system, where judicial precedent and statutory law are both considered part of the body of law. In other words, anyone complaining about judges "legislating from the bench" misunderstands the basic nature of US law.

Second, the Constitution is not an actual law - but among other things, it lays out the standards that law (case law and statutory law both) must uphold. The Founding Fathers weren't dumb, they knew better than to get bogged down in details. Which means that when someone challenges a court decision or a piece of legislation, it is up to a court to interpret (yes, really) the Constitution as it applies to the situation.

Anyway, the Supreme Court declared that if you're in custody (and defining that is a heckuva challenge in and of itself), the situation is inherently coercive. Police has the right to lie, to withhold information, they have very fine-tuned methods to get confessions. Yet, the Fifth Amendment acts as a protection against coerced confessions. Under a strict interpretation of the Fifth, information given to law enforcement has to be given voluntarily. Bit of a puzzler. Are the courts going to look through every interrogation to look for signs of coercion? (And what does voluntary mean, anyway?)

Enter the Miranda warning. Now law enforcement merely has to recite the magic words, and presto: Everything the accused says after the Miranda recitation is considered voluntary and hence admissible. Police and DAs love it. Turns out, people do not remain silent. People do not ask for a lawyer. Ask any defense lawyer, and they'll confirm it.

TL;DR: The Supreme Court has every right to decide how the protections of the Fifth are to be implemented, and Miranda warnings are one of the most convenient things to ever happen to law enforcement.

Those of us who've decided already to say "I invoke my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer present" if the situation was to arise - do not need Miranda. And it's no help to those who haven't thought ahead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 05:05 PM
 
33,313 posts, read 17,049,960 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
How about, in case a career criminal is apprehended, and somehow the police officer forgot to read him his Miranda rights... his testimony can't be thrown out of court if he was told his Miranda rights before. And shouldn't everyone already know their Miranda rights? In every crime show on tv, the criminals are told their rights. It should also be taught in high school too.

Anyway, my point was, that everyone should know their Miranda rights. And not being told them, shouldn't be grounds for throwing out confessions. We need to get tougher on criminals.
Or we could insist on competent police work? I for one like the idea of the government being forced to do everything right before it doles out punishment to an accused citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,647 posts, read 10,368,209 times
Reputation: 7303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
OK, nine judges. So?
Simply correcting your mistaken notion. It was not the arbitrary action of a solitary judge legislating from the bench. SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the Constitution constantly as new cases are brought. One day Miranda v Arizona may be overturned or invalidated by new developments.

You learned something. You're welcome.

Last edited by cuebald; 08-08-2019 at 05:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 05:09 PM
 
16,835 posts, read 14,325,915 times
Reputation: 20744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
The "right to remain silent" isn't mentioned in the Constitution. But its close cousin, the prohibition of government to compel testimony against yourself, is. And since at the beginning of a case, people don't know what might incriminate you and what might no, this quickly turns into the "right to remain silent".

That right, along with the right to an attorney and some others, form the basis of the so-called "Miranda Rights". They are a vital part of our fair legal system, and it's unthinkable that a defendant be denied any of them.

What I didn't see in the Constitution, was any requirement that police officers must turn into Social Studies teachers and explain those rights to a suspect. Or that anything the suspect says must be thrown out of court if he didn't get his rights explained to him.

The "right" to have the rights explained to him, came from a case where a slimeball named Miranda was on trial. Some judge decided that since he didn't get his rights explicitly explained to him before talking, what he said was no longer "evidence", and must be disregarded by the jury. But it has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution.

The suspect MUST be allowed his rights, that is unquestionably correct. If he says he wants an attorney, one must be provided for him. If he says he doesn't want to talk, he cannot be forced. If he simply clamps his mouth shut and says nothing, ditto. But there is no requirement that anyone explain them to him. If they are not explained to him, and he talks (with or without a lawyer), anything he says can be used against him in court. Whether he got any advance explanations or not.

I once made a right turn on a red light (legal in my state), after deciding the car coming a quarter mile away was safely far enough away. Turned out the car coming was a cop, and he pulled me over. Told me that there was a sign at that intersection saying "No Right Turn On Red". I told him I didn't see any such sign. There was a big collection of signs there, mostly advertising. He said that one of them was a NRTOR sign, and gave me a ticket. I kept protesting the sign must have been well camouflaged, because I had looked carefully and had not seen it. He said that ignorance of the law and the situation is no excuse. Afterward I drove back to the intersection and checked carefully, and sure enough, there it was, second sign from the top, fourth from the left.

Point is, my ignorance of what law applied at that intersection, wasn't an excuse to avoid punishment.

But a suspect's ignorance of what rights he has before and during a trial, ARE an excuse to avoid punishment. Which is simply ignorant wishful thinking on the part of the judge. In Miranda's case, such supposed ignorance WAS turned into an excuse, despite there being NO law at the time saying he could dodge punishment for his crime due to his ignorance, if he had talked freely without coercion.

The judged in Miranda's case made up a law out of thin air, that was never in the Constitution, and never passed by any legislature involved.

They were wrong.

Miranda deserved those rights just as much as you and I do. But his ignorance of his rights is no reason to throw out things he said in court, or even to witnesses (or cops) outside of court.
Do you think they only rights a person has are those specifically listed in the constitution?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,647 posts, read 10,368,209 times
Reputation: 7303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
They put a passage into the Constitution that clearly wasn't in it.

IOW, they rewrote it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that cops must inform suspects of their rights?
If all possibilities were intended to be incorporated in the Constitution, the Framers would still be writing it, and still have quite a way to go. SCOTUS hears evidence and issues a ruling, which is their interpretation of the facts at hand currently against the backdrop of the source document. All rulings are subject to change pending new developments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
2,043 posts, read 3,860,957 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
And shouldn't everyone already know their Miranda rights? In every crime show on tv, the criminals are told their rights. It should also be taught in high school too.

Anyway, my point was, that everyone should know their Miranda rights. And not being told them, shouldn't be grounds for throwing out confessions. We need to get tougher on criminals.
One of the reasons everyone knows these rights now are because they are required to be explained. You are right, many people know them because they see people being read their rights on TV. If they weren't required to be advised of these rights we wouldn't be hearing it as often and they might not be as well known.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 05:26 PM
 
Location: San Diego
36 posts, read 8,705 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
If all possibilities were intended to be incorporated in the Constitution, the Framers would still be writing it, and still have quite a way to go.

And they, or at least Madison, figured that out and crafted the Ninth Amendment for that very reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 05:31 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 4,971,770 times
Reputation: 3936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
OK, nine judges. So?
It actually was five judges, a 5-4 decision. One dissenter wrote:

"I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process. In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity."

As an aside, Miranda was retried without the confession admitted at trial and was convicted of the original charges, the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year-old woman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top