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.
They ruled that the police can now talk to you, or ask you if you wish to talk, without a lawyer present. You still have the right to get a lawyer, and you still have the right to not talk. Read the actual article, please.
They ruled that the police can now talk to you, or ask you if you wish to talk, without a lawyer present. You still have the right to get a lawyer, and you still have the right to not talk. Read the actual article, please.
The protection the 1986 ruling created was created for a reason...because of abuse by the police.
Regardless - your thread title is misleading and incorrect.
You still have the right to a lawyer when being interrogated by police.
It's not misleading, because now they can continue interrogating you without your lawyer present, against your will. Whereas previously they had to stop if you wanted your lawyer present.
It's not misleading, because now they can continue interrogating you without your lawyer present, against your will. Whereas previously they had to stop if you wanted your lawyer present.
This decision seems to provide for Enhanced Interrogation.
I did read the article but I am still stunned by the ruling's implications. But most of those arrested are not savvy or well educated about the consequences of their running off their mouths to the police. Someone who has just been arrested and told by the police that things will go better for them if they just tell the truth now rather than complicate matters by retaining counsel may actually believe that. Obviously if I am a cop who wants a suspect to confess to a crime or provide important information about a crime I will do all in my power to get this information in the absence of an attorney. Smart, well educated suspects will know to shut up and wait for their lawyers but the less bright criminal element likely will not. It is a decided victory for law enforcement. My question is whether this ruling will change the Miranda warning now required (the right to have an attorney before being questioned).
Well I'm torn. On the one hand I can see where this could be abused, on the other we have an enitre legal industry that exists for one purpose only, to exploit loopholes in the law and confound and confuse. It has nothing to do with getting to the truth or serving justice. Perhaps it's time for a complete legal review and overhaul.
But most of those arrested are not savvy or well educated about the consequences of their running off their mouths to the police.
Is that the police's fault?
There is free education in this country, all the way thru 12th grade. And that includes civics. If the suspect has somehow managed to avoid learning that he has the right to keep his mouth shut and to a lawyer, that's his problem, not the state's. He still does have the right, and the cops WILL back off and stop questioning him if he asks... and they will even provide him a lawyer.
Liberal desires notwithstanding, we do NOT live in a nanny state where the government is responsible for taking care of every single problem anybody has... including their not knowing their basic rights even after 12+ years of free education.
The state is required to respect the right, and to provide the lawyer. And they will.
P.S. I once turned right at an intersection where the light was red (permitted in California unless a sign says otherwise). There were a dozen different signs at that corner, advertising everything from tax help to Krispy Kremes. I scanned them quickly and then ignored them and turned right. A cop pulled me over and told me one of the signs said "No turn on Red", and gave me a ticket. I told him I never saw the sign, and he said, Too bad, it's there and easy to see, and not knowing the law was my problem, not his.
I see no reason why that rule shouldn't apply to the guy who gets arrested, too.
(I later went back to the intersection and checked. Yep, the sign was there, second from the top, third from the right. I hadn't looked carefully enough... and the result WAS my problem.)
P.P.S. Regarding the title of this thread: People who know they are wrong, usually find they must lie to try to pretend they have a legitimate gripe. arctichomesteader has clearly decided that he is among them.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 05-27-2009 at 10:23 AM..
The real danger is when the police have the wrong suspect altogether, but since the suspect is a bit dim-witted, they can eventually wrangle a confession out of him.
This happens disturbingly often, too.
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.
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.
