Breaking News...FAR right wing Supreme Court strikes down Miranda rights 5-4

[del]

tough crowd

 

[Liability]

Sounds like that's what they did.

No. It doesn't "sound" like that at all.

Your egregious ignorance has already been explored sufficiently.

But the exact opposite of your ignorant belief is true.

In reality (come visit some day) the case leaves the requirement that officers ADVISE suspects of these rights PRIOR to any custodial interrogation entirely intact.

The difference today is that the state is now officially not obliged to treat a mere failure to speak (at first) by the suspect AS an explicit invocation of his or her right to remain silent.

Once advised of the right to remain silent, just BEING silent is not enough. Henceforth, a suspect advised of his rights MUST grunt the words out which tell the cops in sum and substance, "gee, thanks. I think I'll accept that right and just shut up now."

The world is not coming to an end.

Hopefully, your ignorance will come to an end, Val.

Get over yourself...


I said I wasn't sure as I had yet to read the decision, but that's what the thread itself and the other quotes I saw made it sound like. No BFD.

What you SAID was quoted, kid.

Now, take your own advice, Val baby.

 

[Valerie]

Your contribution is as valuable as the OP's who also could not be troubled to read the decision he linked to.

Oh please spare me the arrogant measure of my "contribution" you obnoxious twerp.

We still hold our same rights but now cases can't be thrown out over it not being invoked by the authorities before the suspect spills his confession and gets off on that technicality...I think one danger is in the cases where peolpe feel intimidated and browbeaten by police questioning and don't realize that they do not need to answer.


>

The Miranda Warning has several statements that must be read.
1) You have the right to remain silent
2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law
3) You have the right to have an attorney present before questioning
4) If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent you
-Do you understand these rights?

Miranda Rights: Do We Keep Them or Toss Them?

Since the introduction of the Miranda Rights, there have been many concerns surrounding the issues of the validity of the law. Some may argue that this law is unconstitutional; while others argue that it is just an "extension" of the constitution and is much needed when dealing with criminal investigations today. The law was enacted by way of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) as the result of a coerced confession by the named petitioner (Miranda v. Arizona, 2006). The question today is: do the Miranda Rights do more harm to the criminal justice system than they give help?

In my opinion, I believe that the Miranda Rights are not all that beneficial to the criminal justice system. The only benefit the law gives is giving the suspect a choice to speak now or to speak when his/her attorney is present.

If someone who commits a crime is not aware of their rights, should that not be his/her responsibility as a citizen of this great country? The Miranda Rights are not mandatory to be given by the arresting police officer but are used as a "safeguard" to make sure that the police have acted within the constitution (O'Connor, 2004).

There are certain petitioners that would like to see the Miranda Rights upheld. One of the major arguments for this is because the general population is used to seeing this procedure given and has assumed that this means the criminal justice system will work properly (O'Connor, 2004).

Another argument for keeping these rights upheld is because it has the ability to be administered with little difficulty (O'Connor, 2004).

With this in mind, the Miranda Rights and their administration is very difficult and may subject the officer to embarrassment in court if the rights are not given properly and not in the entirety laid out by the Supreme Court (O'Connor, 2004).

If an officer does not give the rights in the exact wording that is stated under the law, the whole case can be thrown out as the officer failed in "thoroughly" explaining the suspect's rights.

Miranda Rights Controversy - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

>

Miranda Rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Based on this right, the Supreme Court has determined that criminal suspects cannot be subject to custodial interrogations without first being informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to have defense counsel. When a suspect is taken into custody, the Miranda warnings must be given before any interrogation takes place.

The primary purpose of the Miranda warnings is to ensure that an accused is aware of the constitutional right to remain silent before making statements to the police. Two conditions must be satisfied in order to invoke the warnings constitutionally required by Miranda. First, the suspect must have been in custody; second, the suspect must have been subjected to police interrogation. The definition of interrogation extends only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

A custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. With this in mind, what has come to be known as Miranda warnings are not only necessary in the classic arrest situation, but also serve to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. The initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned. Thus, the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation.

There are a few caveats: For instance, a "noncustodial interrogation" will not require Miranda warnings simply because the interrogation took place in a coercive environment. Otherwise, any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. In addition, a noncustodial interview is not transformed into a custodial one simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect.
Miranda Rights

 

[hortysir]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Pardon my naiveté, but where is my right to remain silent?
I see where I can't be a witness against myself. But wouldn't that mean in court, since it says, "without due process of law"?

Just wanting some clarification.....

 

[Valerie]

No. It doesn't "sound" like that at all.

Your egregious ignorance has already been explored sufficiently.

But the exact opposite of your ignorant belief is true.

In reality (come visit some day) the case leaves the requirement that officers ADVISE suspects of these rights PRIOR to any custodial interrogation entirely intact.

The difference today is that the state is now officially not obliged to treat a mere failure to speak (at first) by the suspect AS an explicit invocation of his or her right to remain silent.

Once advised of the right to remain silent, just BEING silent is not enough. Henceforth, a suspect advised of his rights MUST grunt the words out which tell the cops in sum and substance, "gee, thanks. I think I'll accept that right and just shut up now."

The world is not coming to an end.

Hopefully, your ignorance will come to an end, Val.

Get over yourself...


I said I wasn't sure as I had yet to read the decision, but that's what the thread itself and the other quotes I saw made it sound like. No BFD.

What you SAID was quoted, kid.

Now, take your own advice, Val baby.

Oh and I'm always glad for that too!



Perhaps you should consider worrying about some of your own quotes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reading the articles people link to makes me obnoxious...nice

 

[Liability]

Get over yourself...


I said I wasn't sure as I had yet to read the decision, but that's what the thread itself and the other quotes I saw made it sound like. No BFD.

What you SAID was quoted, kid.

Now, take your own advice, Val baby.

Oh and I'm always glad for that too!



Perhaps you should consider worrying about some of your own quotes.

Not at all, kid. I stand by what I've said on this topic.

If, by some strange chance, you are alluding to the little bit of official chastisement I received the other day for being so verbally over the top, you need not fret. I've already attended to that.

But it is the things you've said which have gotten QUOTED that should concern you. Serves to make it more difficult for you to waffle. I'm glad of that, too!

 

[George Costanza]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Pardon my naiveté, but where is my right to remain silent?
I see where I can't be a witness against myself. But wouldn't that mean in court, since it says, "without due process of law"?

Just wanting some clarification.....

Miranda is based upon two constitutional amendments: The 5th Amendment (right against self incrimination, i.e., the "right to remain silent") and the 6th Amendment (right to counsel). Both of these amendments apply to state action by incorporation into and through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Additionally, Miranda applied these rights to custodial interrogation during the pretrial phase of criminal cases.

 

[Liability]

Reading the articles people link to makes me obnoxious...nice

You SCOUNDREL!

 

[Nosmo King]

Right wing scumbags won't let murderers walk EVEN AFTER THEY ADMIT TO THE DEED!!!

It's a sad, sad day. I'm especially sad that Van Chester Thompkins can't move next door to Bfrgn.

and everyone who confesses is guilty. and the cops never coerce or concoct a confession. and there is no evidence to support the idea that sometimes police work is sloppy at best, corrupt at worst. and we should keep drilling no matter the consequences and we should deport all Latinos and we should always allow corporations to decide what's best for our society and we're all going to be millionaires so let's lower taxes.

that's about it for the Conservative talking points, isn't it?

 

[Liability]

Right wing scumbags won't let murderers walk EVEN AFTER THEY ADMIT TO THE DEED!!!

It's a sad, sad day. I'm especially sad that Van Chester Thompkins can't move next door to Bfrgn.

and everyone who confesses is guilty. and the cops never coerce or concoct a confession. and there is no evidence to support the idea that sometimes police work is sloppy at best, corrupt at worst. and we should keep drilling no matter the consequences and we should deport all Latinos and we should always allow corporations to decide what's best for our society and we're all going to be millionaires so let's lower taxes.

that's about it for the Conservative talking points, isn't it?

Your mindless libbie talking pointless is stale and stupid.

As a rule, people decline to confess to crimes they did not commit. I cannot imagine what kind of police conduct in the real world (as opposed to your delusional paranoid libtarded world) would induce me to falsely claim responsibility for a murder or a rape if I wasn't guilty. News flash, genius: although there have been some bad cops, rogue cops, criminal cops in our history, for the most part, they are not the bad guys DESPITE your comic book view of reality.

Has it ever happened, historically, that a bad cop has coerced an innocent person into "confessing" a crime he didn't actually commit? Sure. But it is precisely that kind of thing that the jury system is designed to root out. That the judicial/criminal-justice system is less than wholly perfect is conceded. And? It's still pretty freakin' good. The proper focus of efforts to correct it would therefore logically be found in the realm of making trials ever more fair.

It is not found in making it nearly impossible for honest cops to get guilty people to freely talk at all.

 

[George Costanza]

Where are all the libertarians on this issue...oh, they're not libertarians, they're authoritarian conservative statists!

I'm libertarian and I believe Miranda should not be watered down in any way.

Why not?

What part of the Miranda decision actually makes sense?

It is not enough that a suspect HAS a right to remain silent?

No. One of the main bases for the Miranda decision was the realization that, while all criminal suspects HAVE the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, not very many of them REALIZE they have those rights, especially at the point in the criminal investigation when they have just been arrested and are being interrogated by police. So, practically speaking, it is as if they do not have those rights, because no one "has" something they are not aware of.

Accordingly, Miranda required police to advise all suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel prior to any custodial interrogation, whether it appeared that they knew they had those rights or not. I think this aspect of Miranda makes perfect sense.

Never mind that the vast majority of suspects spill their guts even after they have been Mirandized. That's another issue.

 

[George Costanza]

I cannot imagine what kind of police conduct in the real world (as opposed to your delusional paranoid libtarded world) would induce me to falsely claim responsibility for a murder or a rape if I wasn't guilty.

Try this: You are arrested for the murder of your wife. You didn't do it, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that makes it like like you might have. You are having an affair and she just found out about it, you just took out a life insurance policy on her life with you as the beneficiary and you have been telling your friends you hate her and wish she were dead. In point of fact, she was murdered by the pool guy, who is slightly nutty and who thought she was trying to kill him.

The police tell you that if you refuse to talk to them, they will be asking for the death penalty. On the other hand, if you can tell them something - anything - that will enable them to help you, they will not be seeking the death penalty and will, in fact, be putting a good word in for you with the DA. If all goes as they hope, you could get manslaughter and be out in three years.

Once again - you didn't do it. But, in addition to the above business, the police are also telling you they have you dead to rights; there is no way out for you. Unless you cooperate, you are doomed.

Believe me (1) police pull this kind of stuff ROUTINELY and (2) thrust into a situation such as this, where you are convinced that if you don't implicate yourself in order to avoid the death penalty, you ARE going to get the death penalty, LOTS of suspects do precisely what you would "never do."

News flash, genius: although there have been some bad cops, rogue cops, criminal cops in our history, for the most part, they are not the bad guys DESPITE your comic book view of reality.

I don't know how you would characterize the detectives in the little scenario depicted, above - but what they are doing there is totally legal. Totally immoral, of course but, nonetheless, totally legal. I view murderers as bad guys, but I view cops who use these kind of tactics as bad guys as well.

Has it ever happened, historically, that a bad cop has coerced an innocent person into "confessing" a crime he didn't actually commit? Sure. But it is precisely that kind of thing that the jury system is designed to root out. That the judicial/criminal-justice system is less than wholly perfect is conceded. And? It's still pretty freakin' good. The proper focus of efforts to correct it would therefore logically be found in the realm of making trials ever more fair.

Whenever a suspect is tricked or coerced into making a false confession, the interrogation is usually not recorded. How do you unearth a false confession in that case? By having the defendant testify as to what happened? Right. Juries have a tough time "rooting out" a false confession when it's a question of a murder defendant's word against the word of several detectives with the DA arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, what POSSIBLE reason would these officers have to want to LIE on the stand, under oath, about this confession? Why would they want to JEOPARDIZE THEIR JOBS by doing so, merely to convict someone they never even knew existed prior to this case coming into existence? Against this, you have the 'sworn testimony' of the defendant himself - can you think of any reason the defendant might possibly have for not telling you the truth?"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

You are aware Obama supports this ruling and defended the idea of no Miranda rights?

 

[Bfgrn]

Right wing scumbags won't let murderers walk EVEN AFTER THEY ADMIT TO THE DEED!!!

It's a sad, sad day. I'm especially sad that Van Chester Thompkins can't move next door to Bfrgn.

and everyone who confesses is guilty. and the cops never coerce or concoct a confession. and there is no evidence to support the idea that sometimes police work is sloppy at best, corrupt at worst. and we should keep drilling no matter the consequences and we should deport all Latinos and we should always allow corporations to decide what's best for our society and we're all going to be millionaires so let's lower taxes.

that's about it for the Conservative talking points, isn't it?

Your mindless libbie talking pointless is stale and stupid.

As a rule, people decline to confess to crimes they did not commit. I cannot imagine what kind of police conduct in the real world (as opposed to your delusional paranoid libtarded world) would induce me to falsely claim responsibility for a murder or a rape if I wasn't guilty. News flash, genius: although there have been some bad cops, rogue cops, criminal cops in our history, for the most part, they are not the bad guys DESPITE your comic book view of reality.

Has it ever happened, historically, that a bad cop has coerced an innocent person into "confessing" a crime he didn't actually commit? Sure. But it is precisely that kind of thing that the jury system is designed to root out. That the judicial/criminal-justice system is less than wholly perfect is conceded. And? It's still pretty freakin' good. The proper focus of efforts to correct it would therefore logically be found in the realm of making trials ever more fair.

It is not found in making it nearly impossible for honest cops to get guilty people to freely talk at all.

Hey Frank, I was wrong. I misread the ruling. But I am still against it. Laws and rulings need to protect the citizen. Police officers already possess powers and resources way beyond what an average citizen can match. Try to imagine if a local cop physically abused you. Would you go after him legally, or keep your mouth shut because he knows where you live and he and his fellow officers could make living in your town a nightmare? I know your right wing mind never explores those thoughts.

I am also very critical of this court because it seems all their 5/4 conservative rulings continue to take AWAY rights from the little guy, the average citizens instead of adding protection.

But what really stands out for all to see as I read your posts; your avid and passionate defense of officers of the STATE is impossible to ignore. I guess statism only applies to liberals when they foolishly believe that incompetent boobs of government can create programs that help people. But when the state arrests, incarcerates and executes human beings, it is extremely competent and efficient.

 

[Father Time]

Where are all the libertarians on this issue...oh, they're not libertarians, they're authoritarian conservative statists!

I'm libertarian and I believe Miranda should not be watered down in any way.

I was talking about DUDe, the far right wing 'Grover Norquist' libertarian, Kevin Kennedy and the Rand Paul crowd busy defending the rights of racists.

Racists deserve the same rights as everyone else.

People should never be punished for the opinions they have but rather the actions they commit.

 

[Father Time]

i'm sure that the national association of criminal defense attorneys is a completely unbiased source.

Well who else would know about false confessions more than they do?

You think the prosecutors or the cops would ever admit to it?

no, i don't. that doesn't mean that a defense attorney isn't going to shade things his way-that's what they're paid to do.

requiring someone to say "i wish to invoke my right to remain silent" or words to that effect, just doesn't seem quite the same as beating a confession out of them with a rubber hose. excuse me for not being able to work up a nice frothy head of angst over it.

of course, i'm a STATIST and a peabrain

I never called you a statist do try to keep up.

You think the cops are going to tell them they need to say so? My bet is the cops will leave out that part and then abuse the fact that they never formally used that right.

 

[Father Time]

Ideal Liberal Warnings:

1. We're sorry we bothered you by bringing you in for questioning, we know you have a drug and prostitution business to run

2. If you did it, it's probably society's fault anyway

3. You have the right to express your hatred and anger toward society, we're a mean country, it's our chickens coming home to roost

Hey I can play off-topic partisan hack too. Watch:

Conservative bullshit

1. If you are concerned for the rights of the accused you're obviously pro-crime.

2. Ignoring the rights of the accused makes you tough on crime.

3. If you're not doing anything wrong you never have to worry about government expanding their power.

 

[Father Time]

Oh and liability, I can't find the old post so forgive me if the details are off but yes I believe that if someone remains silent for an hour then police should take the hint and realize they're using their right to remain silent.

 

[chanel]

I applaud this decision. Hopefully it will decide this case:

MAYS LANDING - Nicholas Nigro III just wanted to go home, his attorney said Thursday.

So as he neared his 12th hour in an interrogation room, Nigro admitted he killed his girlfriend and her mother inside their Egg Harbor Township home Sept. 30.

Superior Court Judge Michael Donio will rule next week whether that videotaped confession should be suppressed.

"The confession he gave was probably the most hateful thing I ever heard," Chief Assistant Prosecutor Cary Shill said Thursday in oral arguments that followed several previous hearings during which investigators testified.

In the confession, Nigro, now 26, says he shot the 48-year-old mother, MariJane Buri, first so his girlfriend "would hear it." Paula Mulder, 21, did and tried to run from her bedroom across the hall, but Nigro said he stopped her, forced her back into her bed and shot her twice.

Grassi said that no matter when Nigro invoked his rights, he should have been read his Miranda rights again prior to accepting his confession. Shill sited three Supreme Court cases that say fresh Miranda warnings are not necessary.

Donio is expected to announce his decision Thursday morning.

Judge will decide next week whether Nicholas Nigro III's double homicide admission was legally obtained - pressofAtlanticCity.com

They are arguing that Miranda should have been read a SECOND time. Bullshit.