Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe it is a waste of time for the police to do so because they should know what is the correct procedure is when doing something. Whether or not they fail to inform them of their rights they are still obligated to follow whatever procedures that they are suppose to do regardless...
I know their is a practicable matter about the defendant being aware of their rights but its not the police fault if the defendant is unaware.
The law feels that, in a confrontation between an arrested suspect and the police, the police have such an overwhelming advantage, that the suspect needs a significant amount of protection from police overreaching.
That's right - police overreaching. It happens. Believe me, it happens.
That's the basic motivation behind the Miranda decision.
Ok, here's where I'm confused, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for disobeying the law. So how could ignorance of your rights be used as an excuse for not utilizing your rights?
Ok, here's where I'm confused, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for disobeying the law. So how could ignorance of your rights be used as an excuse for not utilizing your rights?
Good question. The answer is, because it can be when we are dealing with police questioining of a suspect prior to trial. And why can it be? Because that's what The Supremes said in Miranda.
I think one must also consider that ignorance of the law is no excuse, involves a substantive issue, whereas ignorance of the right to remain silent in a custodial interrogation situation involves a procedural issue.
That's my best guess - and it's just that: a guess. Frankly, the question you ask has occurred to me on more than one occasion.
Ok, here's where I'm confused, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for disobeying the law. So how could ignorance of your rights be used as an excuse for not utilizing your rights?
Good question. The answer is, because it can be when we are dealing with police questioining of a suspect prior to trial. And why can it be? Because that's what The Supremes said in Miranda.
I think one must also consider that ignorance of the law is no excuse, involves a substantive issue, whereas ignorance of the right to remain silent in a custodial interrogation situation involves a procedural issue.
That's my best guess - and it's just that: a guess. Frankly, the question you ask has occurred to me on more than one occasion.
Ok, here's where I'm confused, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for disobeying the law. So how could ignorance of your rights be used as an excuse for not utilizing your rights?
Good question. The answer is, because it can be when we are dealing with police questioining of a suspect prior to trial. And why can it be? Because that's what The Supremes said in Miranda.
I think one must also consider that ignorance of the law is no excuse, involves a substantive issue, whereas ignorance of the right to remain silent in a custodial interrogation situation involves a procedural issue.
That's my best guess - and it's just that: a guess. Frankly, the question you ask has occurred to me on more than one occasion.
Distinctions without differences. The privilege against compulsory self incrimination is a pretty basic and fundamental Constitutional principle that the suspects SHOULD have learned of in grade school
Knowledge of some of the more arcane substantive laws (and regulations) is a level of magnitude more doubtful. Yet, the latter set is ok to "presume" -- yet the former isn't?
Why would that be a rational line of demarcation?
No.
We all have a right not to say anything to the police: that doesn't mean we should require our law enforcement officers to play the role of remedial education teachers. If a suspect wishes to say stupid incriminating stuff, provided that the police HONOR his right to remain silent (if invoked), the police should not be required to try to educate the suspect on his right.
Good question. The answer is, because it can be when we are dealing with police questioining of a suspect prior to trial. And why can it be? Because that's what The Supremes said in Miranda.
I think one must also consider that ignorance of the law is no excuse, involves a substantive issue, whereas ignorance of the right to remain silent in a custodial interrogation situation involves a procedural issue.
That's my best guess - and it's just that: a guess. Frankly, the question you ask has occurred to me on more than one occasion.
Distinctions without differences. The privilege against compulsory self incrimination is a pretty basic and fundamental Constitutional principle that the suspects SHOULD have learned of in grade school
Knowledge of some of the more arcane substantive laws (and regulations) is a level of magnitude more doubtful. Yet, the latter set is ok to "presume" -- yet the former isn't?
Why would that be a rational line of demarcation?
No.
We all have a right not to say anything to the police: that doesn't mean we should require our law enforcement officers to play the role of remedial education teachers. If a suspect wishes to say stupid incriminating stuff, provided that the police HONOR his right to remain silent (if invoked), the police should not be required to try to educate the suspect on his right.
OK - you have made your position quite clear on this issue. Whew!
The police have a HUGE advantage over a suspect in custody. The suspect is generally very frightened. He doesn't know what is in store for him. He is in custody. All he can think about is getting himself out of the jam he is in. He wants to go home, etc.
There is a quite natural desire on the part of a suspect in such a situation, to want to talk to the police about it in the hope that he will be able to talk himself out of the situation and be released. This is especially true if the suspect is factually innocent. Against this, we have seasoned detectives who presume that they have the right guy. They want to question him. These guys know every trick in the book and then some on how to get a person to confess to a crime - even if the suspect didn't do the crime.
People who know they have a right to remain silent and the right to an attorney will still waive those rights and talk to the police - because they think they will be helping themselves if they do. Well, guess what - the are NOT helping themselves in almost every case.
And that is why Miranda exists - to afford at least some type of "front line" protection to a suspect who is presumed innocent at this point (let's not forget that, because it is an important factor in the Miranda decision) and who is at a huge disadvantage as he sits in the police station, looking at a detective across the "interview" table.
There are those who feel that this type of protection is not necessary. If you are one of those, so be it. But our criminal justice system DOES feel that this type of protection is necesssary. So do I.
Good question. The answer is, because it can be when we are dealing with police questioining of a suspect prior to trial. And why can it be? Because that's what The Supremes said in Miranda.
I think one must also consider that ignorance of the law is no excuse, involves a substantive issue, whereas ignorance of the right to remain silent in a custodial interrogation situation involves a procedural issue.
That's my best guess - and it's just that: a guess. Frankly, the question you ask has occurred to me on more than one occasion.
Distinctions without differences. The privilege against compulsory self incrimination is a pretty basic and fundamental Constitutional principle that the suspects SHOULD have learned of in grade school
Knowledge of some of the more arcane substantive laws (and regulations) is a level of magnitude more doubtful. Yet, the latter set is ok to "presume" -- yet the former isn't?
Why would that be a rational line of demarcation?
No.
We all have a right not to say anything to the police: that doesn't mean we should require our law enforcement officers to play the role of remedial education teachers. If a suspect wishes to say stupid incriminating stuff, provided that the police HONOR his right to remain silent (if invoked), the police should not be required to try to educate the suspect on his right.
OK - you have made your position quite clear on this issue. Whew!
The police have a HUGE advantage over a suspect in custody. The suspect is generally very frightened. He doesn't know what is in store for him. He is in custody. All he can think about is getting himself out of the jam he is in. He wants to go home, etc.
There is a quite natural desire on the part of a suspect in such a situation, to want to talk to the police about it in the hope that he will be able to talk himself out of the situation and be released. This is especially true if the suspect is factually innocent. Against this, we have seasoned detectives who presume that they have the right guy. They want to question him. These guys know every trick in the book and then some on how to get a person to confess to a crime - even if the suspect didn't do the crime.
People who know they have a right to remain silent and the right to an attorney will still waive those rights and talk to the police - because they think they will be helping themselves if they do. Well, guess what - the are NOT helping themselves in almost every case.
And that is why Miranda exists - to afford at least some type of "front line" protection to a suspect who is presumed innocent at this point (let's not forget that, because it is an important factor in the Miranda decision) and who is at a huge disadvantage as he sits in the police station, looking at a detective across the "interview" table.
There are those who feel that this type of protection is not necessary. If you are one of those, so be it. But our criminal justice system DOES feel that this type of protection is necesssary. So do I.
Distinctions without differences. The privilege against compulsory self incrimination is a pretty basic and fundamental Constitutional principle that the suspects SHOULD have learned of in grade school
Knowledge of some of the more arcane substantive laws (and regulations) is a level of magnitude more doubtful. Yet, the latter set is ok to "presume" -- yet the former isn't?
Why would that be a rational line of demarcation?
No.
We all have a right not to say anything to the police: that doesn't mean we should require our law enforcement officers to play the role of remedial education teachers. If a suspect wishes to say stupid incriminating stuff, provided that the police HONOR his right to remain silent (if invoked), the police should not be required to try to educate the suspect on his right.
OK - you have made your position quite clear on this issue. Whew!
The police have a HUGE advantage over a suspect in custody. The suspect is generally very frightened. He doesn't know what is in store for him. He is in custody. All he can think about is getting himself out of the jam he is in. He wants to go home, etc.
There is a quite natural desire on the part of a suspect in such a situation, to want to talk to the police about it in the hope that he will be able to talk himself out of the situation and be released. This is especially true if the suspect is factually innocent. Against this, we have seasoned detectives who presume that they have the right guy. They want to question him. These guys know every trick in the book and then some on how to get a person to confess to a crime - even if the suspect didn't do the crime.
People who know they have a right to remain silent and the right to an attorney will still waive those rights and talk to the police - because they think they will be helping themselves if they do. Well, guess what - the are NOT helping themselves in almost every case.
And that is why Miranda exists - to afford at least some type of "front line" protection to a suspect who is presumed innocent at this point (let's not forget that, because it is an important factor in the Miranda decision) and who is at a huge disadvantage as he sits in the police station, looking at a detective across the "interview" table.
There are those who feel that this type of protection is not necessary. If you are one of those, so be it. But our criminal justice system DOES feel that this type of protection is necesssary. So do I.
I don't. You have made clear your thesis. Cops have an allegedly huge advantage. Yeah yeah. So your notion of "justice" is to compel them to instruct the stupid criminals all about their valuable right not to say shit that might be useful in getting the criminals convicted.
By the way, if a guy didn't have any involvement in the crime being investigated, it is (for the most part) irrelevant whether he shuts up or not. It's difficult in the normal course of things to adequately implicate yourself in the commission of a crime you had no part in.
So really, the only beneficiaries of your favored "rule" are he very ones who deserve that additional education the least.
Granted they may "need" it (in a limited sense) more than anybody else, but there is no valid principle of justice that says they deserve to get coddled in that way. If Robbie the Rapist has just very recently assaulted some young girl and the cops are led to him with something LESS than probable cause sufficient to warrant his arrest on those rape charges, they may very well still be within their rights (with society's approval) to approach Robbie the Rapist to chat with him. Now let's assume that they notice that he has a just dropped a packet containing a dozen individually wrapped packages of heroin. So, they arrest him on charges of possession with intent to sell.
Robbie is under arrest. The cops have a marginal interest in drug charges but a real deep-seated interest in the rape charges. They'd really like to chat with him, now, about where he was at the time of the rape. But since Robbie is under arrest, they can't do that without educating him all about his Miranda rights -- and eliciting his voluntary waiver of those rights. But Robbie takes the hint. He decides not to talk because those Miranda rights sound real good to him!
Giving that scumbag his rights sure as hell just helped his narrow personal interest in avoiding doing or saying anything that would result in his highly warranted prosecution on rape charges. But it's not clear why any of that road-block that prevents society from getting to true justice was Constitutionally required. What was desirable for Robbie's personal interests in avoiding getting nailed for rape is FAR from desirable in terms of society's interest in prosecuting rapists.
And since there is absolutely NO such "requirement" validly to be found ANYWHERE in the Constitution, the price we as a society pay is far too high in such cases.
(By contrast, picture the same scenario without a Miranda warning requirement. Cops bust Robbie on the drug charge and question him about other matters. His answers, fortuitously for us, provide proof that he was at the scene of the rape at the time of the rape. It might even lead to the discovery of other physical evidence that can get tested forensically. It could, therefore, have resulted in nailing that piece of crap for his crime. Get him off the street before he rapes some other poor young lady. But no. We couldn't have THAT, now, could we? Its much better that we play some needless game of leveling the playing field so that criminals can more easily get away with their crimes! I'm just not seeing very clearly how or why that's a better or a more preferable outcome.)
OK - you have made your position quite clear on this issue. Whew!
The police have a HUGE advantage over a suspect in custody. The suspect is generally very frightened. He doesn't know what is in store for him. He is in custody. All he can think about is getting himself out of the jam he is in. He wants to go home, etc.
There is a quite natural desire on the part of a suspect in such a situation, to want to talk to the police about it in the hope that he will be able to talk himself out of the situation and be released. This is especially true if the suspect is factually innocent. Against this, we have seasoned detectives who presume that they have the right guy. They want to question him. These guys know every trick in the book and then some on how to get a person to confess to a crime - even if the suspect didn't do the crime.
People who know they have a right to remain silent and the right to an attorney will still waive those rights and talk to the police - because they think they will be helping themselves if they do. Well, guess what - the are NOT helping themselves in almost every case.
And that is why Miranda exists - to afford at least some type of "front line" protection to a suspect who is presumed innocent at this point (let's not forget that, because it is an important factor in the Miranda decision) and who is at a huge disadvantage as he sits in the police station, looking at a detective across the "interview" table.
There are those who feel that this type of protection is not necessary. If you are one of those, so be it. But our criminal justice system DOES feel that this type of protection is necesssary. So do I.
I don't. You have made clear your thesis. Cops have an allegedly huge advantage. Yeah yeah. So your notion of "justice" is to compel them to instruct the stupid criminals all about their valuable right not to say shit that might be useful in getting the criminals convicted.
By the way, if a guy didn't have any involvement in the crime being investigated, it is (for the most part) irrelevant whether he shuts up or not. It's difficult in the normal course of things to adequately implicate yourself in the commission of a crime you had no part in.
So really, the only beneficiaries of your favored "rule" are he very ones who deserve that additional education the least.
Granted they may "need" it (in a limited sense) more than anybody else, but there is no valid principle of justice that says they deserve to get coddled in that way. If Robbie the Rapist has just very recently assaulted some young girl and the cops are led to him with something LESS than probable cause sufficient to warrant his arrest on those rape charges, they may very well still be within their rights (with society's approval) to approach Robbie the Rapist to chat with him. Now let's assume that they notice that he has a just dropped a packet containing a dozen individually wrapped packages of heroin. So, they arrest him on charges of possession with intent to sell.
Robbie is under arrest. The cops have a marginal interest in drug charges but a real deep-seated interest in the rape charges. They'd really like to chat with him, now, about where he was at the time of the rape. But since Robbie is under arrest, they can't do that without educating him all about his Miranda rights -- and eliciting his voluntary waiver of those rights. But Robbie takes the hint. He decides not to talk because those Miranda rights sound real good to him!
Giving that scumbag his rights sure as hell just helped his narrow personal interest in avoiding doing or saying anything that would result in his highly warranted prosecution on rape charges. But it's not clear why any of that road-block that prevents society from getting to true justice was Constitutionally required. What was desirable for Robbie's personal interests in avoiding getting nailed for rape is FAR from desirable in terms of society's interest in prosecuting rapists.
And since there is absolutely NO such "requirement" validly to be found ANYWHERE in the Constitution, the price we as a society pay is far too high in such cases.
(By contrast, picture the same scenario without a Miranda warning requirement. Cops bust Robbie on the drug charge and question him about other matters. His answers, fortuitously for us, provide proof that he was at the scene of the rape at the time of the rape. It might even lead to the discovery of other physical evidence that can get tested forensically. It could, therefore, have resulted in nailing that piece of crap for his crime. Get him off the street before he rapes some other poor young lady. But no. We couldn't have THAT, now, could we? Its much better that we play some needless game of leveling the playing field so that criminals can more easily get away with their crimes! I'm just not seeing very clearly how or why that's a better or a more preferable outcome.)
I have seen situations where someone has inadvertently admitted to a different crime even though they were perfectly innocent of the crime they were being questioned about to begin with. Rare, yes, but it happens, especially with druggies.
By the way, if a guy didn't have any involvement in the crime being investigated, it is (for the most part) irrelevant whether he shuts up or not. It's difficult in the normal course of things to adequately implicate yourself in the commission of a crime you had no part in.
By the way, if a guy didn't have any involvement in the crime being investigated, it is (for the most part) irrelevant whether he shuts up or not. It's difficult in the normal course of things to adequately implicate yourself in the commission of a crime you had no part in.
I'm not sure you fully understand the dynamics of the false confession. Remember, when police are interrogating a suspect, they generally have their minds already made up that the guy is guilty. They are only seeking more evidence to bolster their belief in this regard. Contrary to popular belief, and contrary to what they will tell the suspect, the police are NOT interested in "getting the truth," even if it hurts their case.
I have used this example before - I will use it again, as an illustration of how a person with no involvement in the crime whatsoever can literally KILL himself by agreeing to talk to the police under the mistaken assumption that his doing so is going to help him. The crime is murder. The suspect is totally innocent. However, there is some circumstantial evidence that makes him a suspect. The police believe that he IS guilty. All they want is a confession to go along with the circumstantial evidence they already have.
The deceased was killed as the result of a fight. A week before the fight, the deceased got into a huge argument with the suspect in front of a number of people. (Add in whatever other circumstantial evidence you want to dream up - only remember, the suspect is, in fact, innocent.)
The suspect is read his Miranda rights and agrees to talk to the police.
Detective: "All right - we have a mountain of evidence against you." The detective lists everything they have. It really does look bad. The detective continues: "We haven't taken this case to the DA for filing yet. What you tell us is going to make a huge difference in what we will be seeking. We can prove that you not only killed this guy, but also that you were lying in wait for him. That makes this a death penalty case. On the other hand, if what happened was that you were waiting for him only to talk to him, and he attacked you first, then you could well have fought back in self defense. That would make this case either an outright dismissal or some form of manslaughter at worst. Manslaughter can get you as little as 3 years, possibly even probation."
The detective continues: "But, without your input, here we are - going to the DA and seeking the death penalty. So what happened?"
I trust you see where this puts the suspect. He is totally innocent. But they have a "mountain of evidence" against him - they possibly (or probably) threw in some stuff they really didn't have as well. Few people want to be charged with a capital offense, even if they are totally innocent. BIG risk factor there. And besides, the detective has pretty much convinced him that his conviction is inevitable anyway.
One way to avoid that whole nightmare is to take the easy way out - implicate yourself in the crime, knowing that you will at least not have to worry about being put to death. Three years in prison begins to look pretty good when compared to the needle.
And that is the dynamic of the false confession. It is not difficult at all to implicate yourself in a crime you did not commit under circumstances such as these. This never happens? Richard Leo is an internationally known expert on police interrogation and false confessions. He has written dozens of articles and a number of books on this topic. Many of them are listed here:
http://acadserv.usfca.edu/preview/law/faculty/fulltime/RichardLeopub.html
Check any of them out. If you think this rarely happens, you will be reconsidering that opinion after you do.
But if a person who did nothing at all in connection with a crime happens to make some statements relative to that crime (speaking for reasons unrelated to police coercion, which is the scenario I set forth), then it remains quite unlikely that is words will end up being corroborated.
You are also wrong in your initial premise. When cops question a suspect early on, it is NOT THE CASE that they "usually" have their minds made up already. You making that claim and the claim being factually correct are two very different things. It is -- sadly -- true that SOMETIMES cops do this, but it is not the rule. It is the exception.
Moreover, it doesn't much matter if the cops HAVE already made the professional mistake of making up their minds prematurely instead of waiting to see where the evidence leads them. For such shoddy police work tends to create more problems for the prosecution than you might imagine.
But even if a cop has pre-judged the suspect as guilty and tries to "get" the suspect to say the things that will "assist" the cop in making the "case" against the suspect, it still comes down to the suspect doing the talking. Dumbass. Even if he's an innocent dumbass, that's still pretty fucking stupid.
What I posited, however, was the proposition that when the actually guilty person is the one who is being questioned, what he says is almost always stupid since he would (almost always) be better served by just shutting the fuck up.
The TV-cop scenario of "we're gonna tell the DA you didn't cooperate and then the DA will seek the death penalty" may sometimes happen.
But again, that's actually a DIFFERENT problem than the question of whether Miranda warnings should be required.
(I mean, think it through. If a cop is willing to coerce a suspect like that or worse yet, to lie to the prosecutor about how the statement came about, then he can equally well lie about having given the suspect the Miranda warnings in the first place.
In short, for a suspect in those circumstances, the Miranda warning requirement offers no real benefit! This gets us back to the point I made earlier. Miranda warnings basically serve only to get guilty schmucks to clam up, but wouldn't help an innocent person all that much in the first place.)
From another perspective, does the perfect crime involve a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb or not??? Is the real criminal safer from prosecution when a case is closed or left open??? When the police are confused and misled, but satisfied, isn't that the perfect end from the predator's perspective??? Slam dunk for the bad guy's.