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.
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.
The schools largely suck and moreover they don't cover our legal system very thoroughly, if at all. The police and prosecutors work hard to get convictions by any means frequently, with the full power of the government behind them. We should have a system that seeks actual justice not convictions to pad resumes, and one in which the people don't face such an inbalance in power against them. As it is, someone can be clearly innocent, yet still will go bankrupt fighting to stay out of prison. The cops largely are protected when they abuse their power.
My question is whether this ruling will change the Miranda warning now required (the right to have an attorney before being questioned).
I don't think it will, because the suspect still has the right to have an attorney present should they choose. The only thing this ruling says is that IF the person being questioned indicates the willingness or desire to talk without waiting for an attorney, then the police don't have to wait for the attorney, even if one has been called. And part of the Miranda says that "anything you say can and will be used in a court of law", doesn't it? Meaning, once the Miranda warning has been read, the suspect should understand that if there's anything he wants to say that could incriminate him/her in any way, they should just zip the lip and wait for the lawyer.
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).
Why would it affect Miranda?
The police could always tell a suspect that retaining counsel complicates matters. That hasn't changed.
The only thing that seems to have changed is that after you've expressed that you do want an attorney, they don't have to stop questioning you (they can't compel you to answer if you don't want to), and if you want to talk without an attorney present you can do so and those communications can be used against you in a court of law.
Wasn't Michigan v Jackson about a defendant who did choose to talk and who also wrote a letter to the victim's spouse which implicated him? The defense wanted the letter excluded because it was written after the suspect was taken into custody but before a public defender could counsel him. The prosecution wanted the letter included because it was not coerced, the suspect wanted to write the letter.
It seems to me that the court is saying that the rights enumerated in Miranda are distinct and independent. The right to remain silent isn't predicated on the right to an attorney and the right to an attorney isn't predicated on the right to remain silent. So you can invoke the right to representation, but that doesn't automatically invoke the right to remain silent, or revoke any communications you might make with the authorities while waiting for an attorney.
The danger in this decision would be that the police have greater access to the suspect. But this decision doesn't remove any already existing legal protections. The rights are all still intact. The police have always manipulated a suspect's understanding of his rights, it is just that there has been a shadowy area in how much manipulation police could do, and the court has shed a little light on this corner. Will the little extra leeway given here be abused? Probably. Which will lead to further clarification of the law.
The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.
and moreover they don't cover our legal system very thoroughly, if at all.
Is that the police's fault?
Quote:
The police and prosecutors work hard to get convictions by any means frequently,
Do you have any references supporting your contention that they do this (I assume you mean illegally) "frequently"?
More to the point of this thread, did they "work hard to get a conviction by any means" in this case? Or did they read the guy is rights as they should, offer him a lawyer, send for one for him, tell him he didn't have to answer any questions, and then ask him a few questions?
(For those who didn't read the article, answer (b) is the correct one)
Quote:
We should have a system that seeks actual justice not convictions to pad resumes,
We do. Or do you mean we must have an absolutely PERFECT system... an impossibility as long as it is made of imperfect humans? Which translates to, no system will ever satisfy you? While criminals go unpunished, taking advantage of that fact?
Quote:
and one in which the people don't face such an inbalance in power against them.
The "balance of power" seems about right to me in this country. Do you have some plan for a system that convicts MORE of the genuinely guilty while freeing more of the mistakenly-accused innocent? Please describe it, and explain what it does to achieve a better record than our current system produces.
Quote:
As it is, someone can be clearly innocent, yet still will go bankrupt fighting to stay out of prison.
The guy was given a lawyer for FREE. The education where he could learn his rights was FREE.
Going broke wasn't his problem. Going to jail for the crimes he DID commit, was his problem.
And it's HIS problem, due to his own actions. Not the police's, or anyone else's.
It is the government's fault, no? Government run schools keep people ignorant of the government's tactics for taking away their freedom...
Quote:
Do you have any references supporting your contention that they do this (I assume you mean illegally) "frequently"?
More to the point of this thread, did they "work hard to get a conviction by any means" in this case? Or did they read the guy is rights as they should, offer him a lawyer, send for one for him, tell him he didn't have to answer any questions, and then ask him a few questions?
(For those who didn't read the article, answer (b) is the correct one)
But some examples of many...I think everyone could find at least one case they know about where the police/prosecutors weren't really seeking justice but convictions, any convictions...
You seem to focus too much on this one case that is a bad guy...ignoring the implications for many cases. Presumption of innocence is a joke in our system and it's far too easy for the police to get an innocent person convicted because most people are ignorant of police tactics (see the video I linked to). Things should be so thoroughly stacked against the police and government that it is too difficult for them to convict most innocent people. We don't need things stacked in the government's favor.
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.
