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

[ConHog]

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?

 

[Liability]

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.

If the cop is intent on "overreaching" then the Miranda warnings will be of little use to the suspect since the overreaching officer may resort to the simple expedient of lying (i.e., "yes, I gave the suspect his Miranda warnings" even if he didn't).

So the Miranda warnings apply to the cops who are pretty much predisposed to being forthright in the first place.

Valid protections stem from having juries determine whether or not police actions somehow tainted the evidence and made it less reliable. Valid protections do not come from compelling cops to educate ignorant and/or stupid defendants.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

 

[ConHog]

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.

Eh your opinion makes as much sense as anything on the matter and pretty much is what I was thinking but from a layman's way of looking at things.


I work with LEO and I just don't see the big deal of this ruling. LEO still have to read the suspect his miranda rights when he's arrested, the only thing that changes is they now have to verbally assert that right. What's the difference with this and say the right to an attorney? Before this ruling you still had to verbally request an attorney before one was provided, correct? I mean LEO doesn't just assume you want an attorney, why should they just assume you don't want to talk, especially if you already HAVE been talking?

 

[Liability]

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.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

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.

 

[ConHog]

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.

I feel the protection is necessary, i do not feel that coddling beyond the initial reading of the miranda rights is needed. If you're read your rights and you talk anyway you don't get to later say "oh shit I shouldn't have told the cops about the bloody knife" and ask for a do over.

But you are right, occasionally a truly innocent person just gets scared and "admits" to things that aren't true just to get the detective to leave him alone or what have you. I've seen i t, but it's rare.

 

[Liability]

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.

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.)

 

[ConHog]

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.)

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

I've seen it from both sides of the aisle.

I have no problem with a dopey defendant saying too much when he should have (in terms of his own personal legal interest) just shut the hell up instead. When society prosecutes a guilty person for a crime he did commit and some of the evidence came from his own stupid lips, that's a useful tool of the criminal justice system and can be savored by the prosecution, the cops and society.

It's not so "good" from the perspective of the schmuck who spoke too much. Too bad. That's his fault for doing the crime and for being too stupid to zip his lips. (It's also not all that helpful for his attorney. Oh well. Such is life.)

I still don't see why it's "better" -- in terms of actual "justice" -- that we have our police officers serve as some nanny-state remedial education teachers at the very moment when it would serve society's interests, instead, to let stupid criminals yammer, bleat and spew, stupidly, all the things that will help nail them at trial. It is my contention that taking advantage of a stupid criminal's stupidity and/or his personal lack of awareness of his well-known rights is a perfectly valid tool of justice.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

I'm not sure that you understand how ridiculous your concerns are when gauged by the standard of reasonableness.

Have there been some instances of false confessions? Of course.

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. Unless an INNOCENT person is TOLD what to say (which is a very different problem, actually than just whether he should remain silent or not), then what he says is usually NON-inculpatory. But when a guilty person is blabbing on and on, even his denials of "guilt" often contain kernels of useful information (like placing himself at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime or admitting familiarity with the victim or the like).

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.)

 

[George Costanza]

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.

What are you talking about? Your statement here has nothing to do with the factual scenario in my post. In my example, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to back up or corroborate a confession (although the corpus cop out rule has long gone by the boards in California)

You speak of police coercion as if it rarely happens. In point of fact it almost ALWAYS happens in one form or another.

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.

This is merely your opinion. And it is flat wrong. You say I am "claiming" that the police usually have their minds made up prior to questioning. You obviously failed to read the link provided of Richard Leo's research and writings in this area. Once again, if you will take the time to look at the FACTS, you will see that my "claim" is totally correct. I back my "claim" up - I don't see any factual references backing up your opinion here.

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.

Once again you are incorrect. In most cases where the police are after a confession, a critical part of the entire picture is that very fact - that they HAVE made their minds up prior to questioning.

Also, when they are using "shoddy" tactics, you may be assured that they do not record what is going on. Once they get the confession, they may require the suspect to write it down or then turn on the recorder. But the type of shoddy police work that goes on in the interrogation room creates little or no problems for the prosecution, because there is (by design) no way for the defense to prove that it ever happened. All the defense is left with is the defendant's confession being paraded in front of the jury.

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.

Well - we finally agree on something.

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.

You wold be surprised. Read some of Richard Leo's stuff. It happens with regularity, not always in that form, because death penalty cases don't come along all that often. But it happens far more often than one would think.

But again, that's actually a DIFFERENT problem than the question of whether Miranda warnings should be required.

Well, it is and it isn't. I see where you are going here. But consider this: talking to the police under any circumstances is a bad idea, because they do think you are guilty and they will try to trap you, put words in your mouth, etc. Our criminal justice system believes that suspects need to be protected from this kind of thing - or at least given the chance to protect themselves. Hence, the Miranda warning.

So what might happen to you if you do talk to the cops, is very much a consideration which goes into the Miranda decision, requiring that you do not have to talk to them if you choose not to.

(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.

Of course. But police usually require the waiving suspect to sign a Miranda waiver form. When we have a suspect who says "I was never advised," we then ask the cop: "Where's the signed Miranda waiver form?" He won't have it. Lends credence to the defendant's claim he was never advised.

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.)

Oh boy - after all this and you STILL don't get it. Let me try it another way. Your premise here assumes that the police play fair. Hence, an innocent person would not be harmed by talking to them and therefore Miranda warnings don't mean much in the case of a truly innocent person.

The flaw in your logic here is the assumption that an innocent suspect cannot be hurt by talking to the police. Once again - scientific studies have shown over and over again that this simply is not the case.

 

[Intense]

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.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

The real criminal is obviously safer if the case involving the crime he committed is closed. That means they "give up" and will not be pursuing things further. However, there are lots of detectives who NEVER give up. Many detectives will continue to investigate closed cases once they retire. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

I don't know what you mean when you ask about a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb. Are you talking about an innocent person being convicted? Yes - if that happens, and I am the real criminal, I would sleep pretty soundly from that point on. But even that can be undone, given the right combination of facts and a tenacious defense team.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think what he was getting at is that a perfect crime (or crafty criminal) will attempt to set up a scapegoat or frame an innocent so that there is some evidence to point to an innocent person. That would undermine liabilities argument that an innocent person should have no reason not to talk to the police, there may be some set of evidence put there to make them look guilty and seemingly innocuous statements may, in fact, be harmful to your case.


I can speak to the police assuming your guilt. A cop may not necessarily be convinced of your guilt at the get go but their job is to find a guilty party and to that end they always come at you from the 'you are guilty' perspective. Whenever a cop asks a question listen to the way it is asked. It is almost invariable put forth in a way that would implicate you. Remember, once the police have arrested you with some sort of confession or Corroborating statements, they have completed their job. They need not go further because they already caught the bad guy.


After dealing with the police on a few occasions I have now come to the conclusion that there is no reason to ever say ANYTHING to the police. The court system proves guilt or innocence, the cops only provide people for the courts to prosecute. Under that system, our system, the police have no responsibility to find the right guy, just the responsibility to provide the court with suspects to prosecute. Realize the implications of that.

 

[Intense]

You both hit it right on. Some of us will always believe that Justice will prevail in the end, be it through atonement or a lightening strike. Thank God for those that do not give up the search for it.