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 Today, 02:16 AM
 
Location: Ohio
185 posts, read 33,358 times
Reputation: 77

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
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.
The Miranda decision was factually based on the right to the Assistance of Counsel, which is in the Constitution's 6th AM. Miranda was one of the decided consolidated/companion cases by SCOTUS. If you read the Arizona Supreme Court's En Banc opinion you will see that as the basis for the decision and appeal.

401 P.2nd 721.


From the SCOTUS Miranda Syllabus:

(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 475
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 03:15 AM
 
12,705 posts, read 10,034,206 times
Reputation: 16356
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.
Well, there are a couple notable things here. Expecting police officers to enforce the law is their job. It does not render them social studies teachers.

Quote:
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.
One of the beautiful things about our legal system is due process. I like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:20 AM
 
32,599 posts, read 26,552,678 times
Reputation: 19243
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.

i beg to differ with you. the miranda ruling was a good one. the rights you mentioned are codified in the constitution itself, including the right to remain silent just the difference in the use of the language from 1789 to today. they were put in the constitution, and thus the miranda ruling required, that LEOs inform the people they are arresting of their rights to prevent the LEOs from coercing a confession from a suspect.
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