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

[Intense]

What you folks need to understand is, that once police focus on a suspect, any and all conversations they have with him/her are for one purpose and one purpose only - to get the suspect to say something that will incriminate him/her. They are not "trying to learn the truth." They don't want to hear the truth, unless it fortifies their already made up minds on the subject of the suspect's guilt.

Even with the police required to give Miranda warnings, the vast majority of misguided suspects will spill their guts to the cops, thinking it will help them out of the situation they find themselves in. Cops lie to suspects at every turn in order to get them to talk, i.e., confess.

The defendant has told the field officers who came to arrest him that he wasn't anywhere near the crime scene. He didn't even know the dead guy. (And this happens to be the truth.) Now, here comes the detective in the "interview" room, following the suspect's arrest:

"Look, I understand how these things happen. He comes at you, you defend yourself. If that's they way it went down, you aren't guilty of anything and should have this whole thing cleared up in a couple of days at the outside. On the other hand, it this investigation proceeds they way it looks now, without your input, you could well be finding yourself headed toward the death penalty. So what happened? Was it self defense?"

Now, all of a sudden, the innocent suspect is being confronted with a choice: implicate yourself in such a manner that you will "have the matter all cleared up in a couple of days" or face the possibility of the death penalty. Ever wonder why innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit?

So that's why Miranda is SO important. I have not had a chance to fully digest the OP yet. When I do, I'll be back . . .

It boils down to public awareness George. Your points are well taken, and expressed on both Prime Time TV and not so prime time TV every day. Now that could conceivably open the door for the "I do not have cable or Satellite TV" defense, granted, but it is unrealistic. The technicalities in which cases are dismissed, are sometimes more the offense. Let's not confuse " Presumed Innocent until proven Guilty in a Court of Law" with the real world either. It did not happen unless the Court said it did, is blind reasoning, not impartial. Whether the Defendant walks or not, rightly or wrongly, lets not approach the issue like morons. I've known Cop's and Official's that have shut people up, to protect them from their mouth's too.

 

[George Costanza]

It boils down to public awareness George. Your points are well taken, and expressed on both Prime Time TV and not so prime time TV every day. Now that could conceivably open the door for the "I do not have cable or Satellite TV" defense, granted, but it is unrealistic. The technicalities in which cases are dismissed, are sometimes more the offense. Let's not confuse " Presumed Innocent until proven Guilty in a Court of Law" with the real world either. It did not happen unless the Court said it did, is blind reasoning, not impartial. Whether the Defendant walks or not, rightly or wrongly, lets not approach the issue like morons. I've known Cop's and Official's that have shut people up, to protect them from their mouth's too.

Not totally sure what you are trying to say here . . .

You mention the "technicalities" on which cases are sometimes dismisses as being "sometimes more the offense." By this, I assume you are saying that it is oftentimes a worse "offense" (against society) that a criminal go free on a "technicality," than the actual offense the guy committed in the first place.

I disagree. A question I often like to ask jurors on voir dire is: "It has often been said that, under our criminal justice system, it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than that 1 innocent man be convicted. How do you feel about that statement?" The answer is often quite revealing on the issue of what kind of juror this person will make.

It is frustrating to see a guy who gets caught dead to rights with a kilo of cocaine in his car, go free because the cop got caught making a random stop of the car followed by an illegal search of the vehicle. But the 4th Amendment is far from a "technicality." It is a vital part of our freedom in this country and I, for one, value it as dearly as some guy hauling a carload of dope around on the interstate.

 

[Intense]

Well, it looks to me like you need to spend more time advising the public about proper use of their rights, and less time bitching about what is obvious to the rest of us. Here is another one, don't lie, say nothing. Ask for council. Do not do the prosecutors job for him.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! ..... I don't think so.

You don't seem to see this as a major problem, largely on the assumption that all that needs to be done is advise the public about the proper use of their rights. Would that it were that simple.

It is one thing to sit back and calmly analyze this situation abstractly, when you are not at all involved in it on a personal level. It is quite another when you have been arrested, are seated in the "interview" room and a slick detective is telling you that they have you dead to rights and your ONLY hope to avoid spending years in prison is to tell him "your side of it."

Confronted with something like that, most people will talk, regardless of how "well informed" they were of their rights, going in. They will talk out of pure, self interest. They will talk because they are convinced that, unless they do, the police and the prosecutor will put them away forever.

And, in extreme situations, innocent people will confess to crimes they did not commit because they are convinced that if they do confess, they will receive a light sentence whereas if they don't, they will be severely punished. Why do they become convinced of that? Because that's what the police tell them in order to get them to confess.

Thats all relevant George and evidence of a corrupted system, Miranda being the least of it. If Truth and Justice are the bottom line, the bargains and false pleas should not be encouraged. Not to be confused with "The Mercy of The Court". Hiding the truth or fabricating stories should not be rewarded by shorter time. Neither should prisons not protect Inmates from Rapes, Beatings, and Murders. Chaos should have no place, and where it does, it is both due to criminal neglect and incompetence.

I've seen Cops lie first hand, hint, they are human just like us. Competent Defense is both the solution and the problem, the lack of it anyway.

 

[goldcatt]

Well, it looks to me like you need to spend more time advising the public about proper use of their rights, and less time bitching about what is obvious to the rest of us. Here is another one, don't lie, say nothing. Ask for council. Do not do the prosecutors job for him.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! ..... I don't think so.

You don't seem to see this as a major problem, largely on the assumption that all that needs to be done is advise the public about the proper use of their rights. Would that it were that simple.

It is one thing to sit back and calmly analyze this situation abstractly, when you are not at all involved in it on a personal level. It is quite another when you have been arrested, are seated in the "interview" room and a slick detective is telling you that they have you dead to rights and your ONLY hope to avoid spending years in prison is to tell him "your side of it."

Confronted with something like that, most people will talk, regardless of how "well informed" they were of their rights, going in. They will talk out of pure, self interest. They will talk because they are convinced that, unless they do, the police and the prosecutor will put them away forever.

And, in extreme situations, innocent people will confess to crimes they did not commit because they are convinced that if they do confess, they will receive a light sentence whereas if they don't, they will be severely punished. Why do they become convinced of that? Because that's what the police tell them in order to get them to confess.

Thats all relevant George and evidence of a corrupted system, Miranda being the least of it. If Truth and Justice are the bottom line, the bargains and false pleas should not be encouraged. Not to be confused with "The Mercy of The Court". Hiding the truth or fabricating stories should not be rewarded by shorter time. Neither should prisons not protect Inmates from Rapes, Beatings, and Murders. Chaos should have no place, and where it does, it is both due to criminal neglect and incompetence.

I've seen Cops lie first hand, hint, they are human just like us. Competent Defense is both the solution and the problem, the lack of it anyway.

Miranda used properly is only a tool for making sure the suspect is informed of his (or her) 5th Amendment rights. It's part of the solution, not the problem.

Now telling suspects in their Miranda warning that they have the right to remain silent as a blanket statement with no caveats, and then changing that in practice to "You have the right to remain silent IF you ask for it" seems to rub up against those ideals of Truth and Justice.

 

[Intense]

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."

Well, it looks to me like you need to spend more time advising the public about proper use of their rights, and less time bitching about what is obvious to the rest of us. Here is another one, don't lie, say nothing. Ask for council. Do not do the prosecutors job for him.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! ..... I don't think so.

Actually it IS...

U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

Non-Violent Offenses Leads United States to World's Highest Incarceration Rate

The United States has the highest incarceration rate amongst any country in the world, including China, Iran, Russia or any other socialistic country. Of every 99 people in America, 1 of them is in jail. That is 1.6 million of your fellow Americans. This is an increase of 25,000 prisoners within the last year and an increase of 1 million in the last 20 years. The increase is blamed on mandatory sentencing, non-violent crime incarceration, and three strike policies.

Last year 49 billion dollars nationwide was spent on correction facilities, 4 times the amount spent 20 years ago. This is 60% of what federal and state governments spend on higher education, double the ratio for 1987. California taxpayers spend nearly 35,000 dollars per inmate for housing. One of the worst states, Oregon, spends 1.6 billion, which is nearly 10.9% of the state's general funds budget. Also in Oregon, 174 million more dollars are spent on jails than college education. College education is important because states with a higher college enrollment rate experience a lower violent crime rate. The top 10 college enrollment states averaged 276 violent crimes per 100,000 people, while the lowest 10 states averaged 440 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

U.S. Leads World In Child Incarceration

Amnesty International Report Condemns U.S. Child Injustice

More than half of kids prosecuted as adults are there for nonviolent offenses. Over 89,000 kids a year thrown into solitary confinement for more than a day.

US leads world in jailing children for life

THE United States has far more juveniles serving life terms than any other country — 2387. Israel, the only other country that imprisons juveniles for life, according to a new study by the University of San Francisco's Centre for Law & Global Justice, has seven.

LewRockwell.com

We may be on the same side on some of those issues. Your statistics would vary some had we responsible border protection and Immigration Policies that were actually enforced.

I am very literal in translation when it comes to Trying Minors as adults. I believe it to be totally wrong. I also believe that it is wrong to release Minors from sentence, when they turn adult, when they still represent threat to society. Reform is needed for both the system Itself and the Inmate. The environment should be safe above all else except security.

In early Religion, there were other way's to atone besides incarceration. Re-compensation, Service, Value for Value. Just a thought.

 

[George Costanza]

Well, it looks to me like you need to spend more time advising the public about proper use of their rights, and less time bitching about what is obvious to the rest of us. Here is another one, don't lie, say nothing. Ask for council. Do not do the prosecutors job for him.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! ..... I don't think so.

You don't seem to see this as a major problem, largely on the assumption that all that needs to be done is advise the public about the proper use of their rights. Would that it were that simple.

It is one thing to sit back and calmly analyze this situation abstractly, when you are not at all involved in it on a personal level. It is quite another when you have been arrested, are seated in the "interview" room and a slick detective is telling you that they have you dead to rights and your ONLY hope to avoid spending years in prison is to tell him "your side of it."

Confronted with something like that, most people will talk, regardless of how "well informed" they were of their rights, going in. They will talk out of pure, self interest. They will talk because they are convinced that, unless they do, the police and the prosecutor will put them away forever.

And, in extreme situations, innocent people will confess to crimes they did not commit because they are convinced that if they do confess, they will receive a light sentence whereas if they don't, they will be severely punished. Why do they become convinced of that? Because that's what the police tell them in order to get them to confess.

Thats all relevant George and evidence of a corrupted system, Miranda being the least of it. If Truth and Justice are the bottom line, the bargains and false pleas should not be encouraged. Not to be confused with "The Mercy of The Court". Hiding the truth or fabricating stories should not be rewarded by shorter time. Neither should prisons not protect Inmates from Rapes, Beatings, and Murders. Chaos should have no place, and where it does, it is both due to criminal neglect and incompetence.

I've seen Cops lie first hand, hint, they are human just like us. Competent Defense is both the solution and the problem, the lack of it anyway.

I am not in favor of police being allowed to lie to suspects about what evidence they have against them (when they have none) nor about police being allowed to make promises of leniency which they have no intention of ever trying to obtain for the confessing defendant.

Recording of a suspect's statement to police should be a prerequisite to admissibility of that statement into evidence at trial. Four or five states have this (civilized) law in effect. More need to enact it.

 

[Intense]

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

Unfortunately del, your epiphany will only occur when you are at the end of the rubber hose. How many innocent people in prison is acceptable to you del. If it is only one, will YOU take their place? If NOT, then you ARE a statist, a pea brain and a phony.

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

Come on Man. .... Miranda Rights have nothing to do with a Cop beating you outside of the Law with a Rubber Hose or sticking a Knight Stick where the Sun don't shine. We need to deal with Predators where We find them. Criminal is Criminal.

 

[Liability]

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? But the police trying to investigate crime (some of it rather serious) are obliged to detail that right for the benefit of a suspect who might otherwise just let slip the crucial details that help the cops stop a crime, save a life, free a kidnap victim, arrest a child molester or a rapist or a murderer?

I will grant you (and I DO grant you) that advising a criminal suspect of these rights gives those Constitutional rights and privileges a little more "uuuumph." It's not all bad. But it certainly isn't something the constitution itself ever required. No indeed. It took a bunch of SCOTUS judges to pass that little bit of law. And make no mistake about it. That's what they did. They legislated it from the bench.

Is the price paid actually worth it?

Do we, as a society, REALLY want confessions or admissions excluded as evidence just because some cop failed to tell the suspect that he didn't have to speak to the cops?

Here's the impact: Dangerous Donny Dirt grabs a little girl off the street. He molests her. She is too young to give a solid identification, but Dirt left some evidence behind. Alas, it's not DNA. But it does more or less point to him. So the police arrange to chat with Dirt after arresting him on some unrelated charge (smoking pot in public for example). During the questioning (all professional, no thumbscrews or any water-boarding, etc.) Dirt lets a fact slip that inculpates him in the child molestation case. Excellent.

But OOOOPS. Even though the cops gave DIRT his Miranda warnings, Dirt originally had been a quiet little scumbag. The police "should have" taken that as his invocation of his right to remain silent. Therefore, when the constable blunders (as if that's actually a blunder), the prosecutor and society must pay. How retarded. His statements implicating himself get suppressed. The jury never gets to hear those words. Without them, the balance of the evidence is good but not good enough. A reasonable doubt lingers and the jury acquits.

Why exactly should DIRT get rewarded here? Why should society have to pay?

If today's decision constitutes "watering down" such untold stupidities associated with the the Miranda rule, then I say GREAT!

 

[Intense]

It boils down to public awareness George. Your points are well taken, and expressed on both Prime Time TV and not so prime time TV every day. Now that could conceivably open the door for the "I do not have cable or Satellite TV" defense, granted, but it is unrealistic. The technicalities in which cases are dismissed, are sometimes more the offense. Let's not confuse " Presumed Innocent until proven Guilty in a Court of Law" with the real world either. It did not happen unless the Court said it did, is blind reasoning, not impartial. Whether the Defendant walks or not, rightly or wrongly, lets not approach the issue like morons. I've known Cop's and Official's that have shut people up, to protect them from their mouth's too.

Not totally sure what you are trying to say here . . .

You mention the "technicalities" on which cases are sometimes dismisses as being "sometimes more the offense." By this, I assume you are saying that it is oftentimes a worse "offense" (against society) that a criminal go free on a "technicality," than the actual offense the guy committed in the first place.

I disagree. A question I often like to ask jurors on voir dire is: "It has often been said that, under our criminal justice system, it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than that 1 innocent man be convicted. How do you feel about that statement?" The answer is often quite revealing on the issue of what kind of juror this person will make.

It is frustrating to see a guy who gets caught dead to rights with a kilo of cocaine in his car, go free because the cop got caught making a random stop of the car followed by an illegal search of the vehicle. But the 4th Amendment is far from a "technicality." It is a vital part of our freedom in this country and I, for one, value it as dearly as some guy hauling a carload of dope around on the interstate.

I disagree. A question I often like to ask jurors on voir dire is: "It has often been said that, under our criminal justice system, it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than that 1 innocent man be convicted. How do you feel about that statement?" The answer is often quite revealing on the issue of what kind of juror this person will make.

It is frustrating to see a guy who gets caught dead to rights with a kilo of cocaine in his car, go free because the cop got caught making a random stop of the car followed by an illegal search of the vehicle. But the 4th Amendment is far from a "technicality." It is a vital part of our freedom in this country and I, for one, value it as dearly as some guy hauling a carload of dope around on the interstate.

Some Technicalities are total bullshit. Some have more relevance than others, Some like Bill Ayer's buy their way out. Be the corruption political, economic, or due to who you are related to, it stinks. My point is that it should be weighted, considered, evaluated, compared to the rest of the evidence, and not just taken as a get out of jail free card.

 

[syrenn]

It boils down to public awareness George. Your points are well taken, and expressed on both Prime Time TV and not so prime time TV every day. Now that could conceivably open the door for the "I do not have cable or Satellite TV" defense, granted, but it is unrealistic. The technicalities in which cases are dismissed, are sometimes more the offense. Let's not confuse " Presumed Innocent until proven Guilty in a Court of Law" with the real world either. It did not happen unless the Court said it did, is blind reasoning, not impartial. Whether the Defendant walks or not, rightly or wrongly, lets not approach the issue like morons. I've known Cop's and Official's that have shut people up, to protect them from their mouth's too.

Not totally sure what you are trying to say here . . .

You mention the "technicalities" on which cases are sometimes dismisses as being "sometimes more the offense." By this, I assume you are saying that it is oftentimes a worse "offense" (against society) that a criminal go free on a "technicality," than the actual offense the guy committed in the first place.

I disagree. A question I often like to ask jurors on voir dire is: "It has often been said that, under our criminal justice system, it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than that 1 innocent man be convicted. How do you feel about that statement?" The answer is often quite revealing on the issue of what kind of juror this person will make.

It is frustrating to see a guy who gets caught dead to rights with a kilo of cocaine in his car, go free because the cop got caught making a random stop of the car followed by an illegal search of the vehicle. But the 4th Amendment is far from a "technicality." It is a vital part of our freedom in this country and I, for one, value it as dearly as some guy hauling a carload of dope around on the interstate.

Challenges, challenges. Its also interesting to watch the court when you tell them you refuse to be questioned in open court and all questions must be asked in chambers.

The answer is that you have faith in the legal system and all men are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, it looks to me like you need to spend more time advising the public about proper use of their rights, and less time bitching about what is obvious to the rest of us. Here is another one, don't lie, say nothing. Ask for council. Do not do the prosecutors job for him.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! ..... I don't think so.

Actually it IS...

U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

Non-Violent Offenses Leads United States to World's Highest Incarceration Rate

The United States has the highest incarceration rate amongst any country in the world, including China, Iran, Russia or any other socialistic country. Of every 99 people in America, 1 of them is in jail. That is 1.6 million of your fellow Americans. This is an increase of 25,000 prisoners within the last year and an increase of 1 million in the last 20 years. The increase is blamed on mandatory sentencing, non-violent crime incarceration, and three strike policies.

Last year 49 billion dollars nationwide was spent on correction facilities, 4 times the amount spent 20 years ago. This is 60% of what federal and state governments spend on higher education, double the ratio for 1987. California taxpayers spend nearly 35,000 dollars per inmate for housing. One of the worst states, Oregon, spends 1.6 billion, which is nearly 10.9% of the state's general funds budget. Also in Oregon, 174 million more dollars are spent on jails than college education. College education is important because states with a higher college enrollment rate experience a lower violent crime rate. The top 10 college enrollment states averaged 276 violent crimes per 100,000 people, while the lowest 10 states averaged 440 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

U.S. Leads World In Child Incarceration

Amnesty International Report Condemns U.S. Child Injustice

More than half of kids prosecuted as adults are there for nonviolent offenses. Over 89,000 kids a year thrown into solitary confinement for more than a day.

US leads world in jailing children for life

THE United States has far more juveniles serving life terms than any other country — 2387. Israel, the only other country that imprisons juveniles for life, according to a new study by the University of San Francisco's Centre for Law & Global Justice, has seven.

LewRockwell.com

We may be on the same side on some of those issues. Your statistics would vary some had we responsible border protection and Immigration Policies that were actually enforced.

I am very literal in translation when it comes to Trying Minors as adults. I believe it to be totally wrong. I also believe that it is wrong to release Minors from sentence, when they turn adult, when they still represent threat to society. Reform is needed for both the system Itself and the Inmate. The environment should be safe above all else except security.

In early Religion, there were other way's to atone besides incarceration. Re-compensation, Service, Value for Value. Just a thought.

Prisons should be for people that commit violent crimes. No drug user deserves to be in prison. It costs around $30-40,000 per year to incarcerate a human being. A hell of a rehab program could be had for a lot less taxpayer's money. Re-compensation, Service, Value for Value for thieves and other non-violent crimes would be a good idea. Put an end to capital punishment. It costs states and local municipalities 8 times more than life without parole. End, three strikes you're out, because once you get one strike, even a routine traffic stop turns into a 5 car interrogation with drug dogs and forced searches. You are on a glide path to hell.

But herein lies the problem. The right wing NEED to punish human beings. You can deny it for yourself. But I see it as a very strong right wing trait.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually it IS...

U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

Non-Violent Offenses Leads United States to World's Highest Incarceration Rate

The United States has the highest incarceration rate amongst any country in the world, including China, Iran, Russia or any other socialistic country. Of every 99 people in America, 1 of them is in jail. That is 1.6 million of your fellow Americans. This is an increase of 25,000 prisoners within the last year and an increase of 1 million in the last 20 years. The increase is blamed on mandatory sentencing, non-violent crime incarceration, and three strike policies.

Last year 49 billion dollars nationwide was spent on correction facilities, 4 times the amount spent 20 years ago. This is 60% of what federal and state governments spend on higher education, double the ratio for 1987. California taxpayers spend nearly 35,000 dollars per inmate for housing. One of the worst states, Oregon, spends 1.6 billion, which is nearly 10.9% of the state's general funds budget. Also in Oregon, 174 million more dollars are spent on jails than college education. College education is important because states with a higher college enrollment rate experience a lower violent crime rate. The top 10 college enrollment states averaged 276 violent crimes per 100,000 people, while the lowest 10 states averaged 440 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

U.S. Leads World In Child Incarceration

Amnesty International Report Condemns U.S. Child Injustice

More than half of kids prosecuted as adults are there for nonviolent offenses. Over 89,000 kids a year thrown into solitary confinement for more than a day.

US leads world in jailing children for life

THE United States has far more juveniles serving life terms than any other country — 2387. Israel, the only other country that imprisons juveniles for life, according to a new study by the University of San Francisco's Centre for Law & Global Justice, has seven.

LewRockwell.com

We may be on the same side on some of those issues. Your statistics would vary some had we responsible border protection and Immigration Policies that were actually enforced.

I am very literal in translation when it comes to Trying Minors as adults. I believe it to be totally wrong. I also believe that it is wrong to release Minors from sentence, when they turn adult, when they still represent threat to society. Reform is needed for both the system Itself and the Inmate. The environment should be safe above all else except security.

In early Religion, there were other way's to atone besides incarceration. Re-compensation, Service, Value for Value. Just a thought.

Prisons should be for people that commit violent crimes. No drug user deserves to be in prison. It costs around $30-40,000 per year to incarcerate a human being. A hell of a rehab program could be had for a lot less taxpayer's money. Re-compensation, Service, Value for Value for thieves and other non-violent crimes would be a good idea. Put an end to capital punishment. It costs states and local municipalities 8 times more than life without parole. End, three strikes you're out, because once you get one strike, even a routine traffic stop turns into a 5 car interrogation with drug dogs and forced searches. You are on a glide path to hell.

But herein lies the problem. The right wing NEED to punish human beings. You can deny it for yourself. But I see it as a very strong right wing trait.

Being held accountable is punative ?

 

[Bfgrn]

We may be on the same side on some of those issues. Your statistics would vary some had we responsible border protection and Immigration Policies that were actually enforced.

I am very literal in translation when it comes to Trying Minors as adults. I believe it to be totally wrong. I also believe that it is wrong to release Minors from sentence, when they turn adult, when they still represent threat to society. Reform is needed for both the system Itself and the Inmate. The environment should be safe above all else except security.

In early Religion, there were other way's to atone besides incarceration. Re-compensation, Service, Value for Value. Just a thought.

Prisons should be for people that commit violent crimes. No drug user deserves to be in prison. It costs around $30-40,000 per year to incarcerate a human being. A hell of a rehab program could be had for a lot less taxpayer's money. Re-compensation, Service, Value for Value for thieves and other non-violent crimes would be a good idea. Put an end to capital punishment. It costs states and local municipalities 8 times more than life without parole. End, three strikes you're out, because once you get one strike, even a routine traffic stop turns into a 5 car interrogation with drug dogs and forced searches. You are on a glide path to hell.

But herein lies the problem. The right wing NEED to punish human beings. You can deny it for yourself. But I see it as a very strong right wing trait.

Being held accountable is punative ?

Being held accountable doesn't HAVE to be punitive. Prisons CREATE criminals. Violent crime deserves incarceration. There are better, cheaper and more humane ways to deal with most 'crimes'...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

 

[del]

Well, it looks to me like you need to spend more time advising the public about proper use of their rights, and less time bitching about what is obvious to the rest of us. Here is another one, don't lie, say nothing. Ask for council. Do not do the prosecutors job for him.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! ..... I don't think so.

You don't seem to see this as a major problem, largely on the assumption that all that needs to be done is advise the public about the proper use of their rights. Would that it were that simple.

It is one thing to sit back and calmly analyze this situation abstractly, when you are not at all involved in it on a personal level. It is quite another when you have been arrested, are seated in the "interview" room and a slick detective is telling you that they have you dead to rights and your ONLY hope to avoid spending years in prison is to tell him "your side of it."

Confronted with something like that, most people will talk, regardless of how "well informed" they were of their rights, going in. They will talk out of pure, self interest. They will talk because they are convinced that, unless they do, the police and the prosecutor will put them away forever.

And, in extreme situations, innocent people will confess to crimes they did not commit because they are convinced that if they do confess, they will receive a light sentence whereas if they don't, they will be severely punished. Why do they become convinced of that? Because that's what the police tell them in order to get them to confess.

as george v. higgins so eloquently put it, "it's a hard life, kid, and it's even harder when you're stupid."

confessing to a crime that you didn't commit is stupid. i feel bad for stupid people, but i see no point in catering to them.

 

[goldcatt]

Prisons should be for people that commit violent crimes. No drug user deserves to be in prison. It costs around $30-40,000 per year to incarcerate a human being. A hell of a rehab program could be had for a lot less taxpayer's money. Re-compensation, Service, Value for Value for thieves and other non-violent crimes would be a good idea. Put an end to capital punishment. It costs states and local municipalities 8 times more than life without parole. End, three strikes you're out, because once you get one strike, even a routine traffic stop turns into a 5 car interrogation with drug dogs and forced searches. You are on a glide path to hell.

But herein lies the problem. The right wing NEED to punish human beings. You can deny it for yourself. But I see it as a very strong right wing trait.

Being held accountable is punative ?

Being held accountable doesn't HAVE to be punitive. Prisons CREATE criminals. Violent crime deserves incarceration. There are better, cheaper and more humane ways to deal with most 'crimes'...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

But are those other ways still punishment? Is it the use of the State polis power to force an action as punishment for breaking a set standard of behavior? If so, then it's still punitive - even if it doesn't involve incarceration.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, it looks to me like you need to spend more time advising the public about proper use of their rights, and less time bitching about what is obvious to the rest of us. Here is another one, don't lie, say nothing. Ask for council. Do not do the prosecutors job for him.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! ..... I don't think so.

You don't seem to see this as a major problem, largely on the assumption that all that needs to be done is advise the public about the proper use of their rights. Would that it were that simple.

It is one thing to sit back and calmly analyze this situation abstractly, when you are not at all involved in it on a personal level. It is quite another when you have been arrested, are seated in the "interview" room and a slick detective is telling you that they have you dead to rights and your ONLY hope to avoid spending years in prison is to tell him "your side of it."

Confronted with something like that, most people will talk, regardless of how "well informed" they were of their rights, going in. They will talk out of pure, self interest. They will talk because they are convinced that, unless they do, the police and the prosecutor will put them away forever.

And, in extreme situations, innocent people will confess to crimes they did not commit because they are convinced that if they do confess, they will receive a light sentence whereas if they don't, they will be severely punished. Why do they become convinced of that? Because that's what the police tell them in order to get them to confess.

as george v. higgins so eloquently put it, "it's a hard life, kid, and it's even harder when you're stupid."

confessing to a crime that you didn't commit is stupid. i feel bad for stupid people, but i see no point in catering to them.

Stick the "John Wayne' bullshit up your ass.

Stupid IS as stupid DOES. Spending $30-40,000 per year to incarcerate an innocent person IS STUPIDITY.

 

[del]

You don't seem to see this as a major problem, largely on the assumption that all that needs to be done is advise the public about the proper use of their rights. Would that it were that simple.

It is one thing to sit back and calmly analyze this situation abstractly, when you are not at all involved in it on a personal level. It is quite another when you have been arrested, are seated in the "interview" room and a slick detective is telling you that they have you dead to rights and your ONLY hope to avoid spending years in prison is to tell him "your side of it."

Confronted with something like that, most people will talk, regardless of how "well informed" they were of their rights, going in. They will talk out of pure, self interest. They will talk because they are convinced that, unless they do, the police and the prosecutor will put them away forever.

And, in extreme situations, innocent people will confess to crimes they did not commit because they are convinced that if they do confess, they will receive a light sentence whereas if they don't, they will be severely punished. Why do they become convinced of that? Because that's what the police tell them in order to get them to confess.

as george v. higgins so eloquently put it, "it's a hard life, kid, and it's even harder when you're stupid."

confessing to a crime that you didn't commit is stupid. i feel bad for stupid people, but i see no point in catering to them.

Stick the "John Wayne' bullshit up your ass.

Stupid IS as stupid DOES. Spending $30-40,000 per year to incarcerate an innocent person IS STUPIDITY.

what john wayne bullshit is that, fucknugget?


stupid people shouldn't confess to crimes they didn't commit, should they?


or is it your position that everyone's too stupid to know that?

 

[Valerie]

Well, it looks to me like you need to spend more time advising the public about proper use of their rights, and less time bitching about what is obvious to the rest of us. Here is another one, don't lie, say nothing. Ask for council. Do not do the prosecutors job for him.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! ..... I don't think so.

You don't seem to see this as a major problem, largely on the assumption that all that needs to be done is advise the public about the proper use of their rights. Would that it were that simple.

It is one thing to sit back and calmly analyze this situation abstractly, when you are not at all involved in it on a personal level. It is quite another when you have been arrested, are seated in the "interview" room and a slick detective is telling you that they have you dead to rights and your ONLY hope to avoid spending years in prison is to tell him "your side of it."

Confronted with something like that, most people will talk, regardless of how "well informed" they were of their rights, going in. They will talk out of pure, self interest. They will talk because they are convinced that, unless they do, the police and the prosecutor will put them away forever.

And, in extreme situations, innocent people will confess to crimes they did not commit because they are convinced that if they do confess, they will receive a light sentence whereas if they don't, they will be severely punished. Why do they become convinced of that? Because that's what the police tell them in order to get them to confess.

as george v. higgins so eloquently put it, "it's a hard life, kid, and it's even harder when you're stupid."

confessing to a crime that you didn't commit is stupid. i feel bad for stupid people, but i see no point in catering to them.

Maybe they could just put a bumper sticker in the back of every cruiser YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT and in every police station YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT and whatever happens should naturally be a part of the corroborated record.

 

[Big Fitz]

On the good news, convictions of stupid criminals will go up.

 

[Liability]

Let's take stock.

Bfgrn's original and stupid, ignorant and erroneous complaint was that the SCOTUS decision somehow gutted Miranda and negated the requirement that the police must advise suspects of their right to remain silent and so forth.

Bfgrn was flatly wrong. Nothing new in that.

NOW, he is turning the discussion to his unsophisticated view of the penal portion of the criminal justice system.

While it is true that there are lots of people incarcerated in America, it is rather vacuous of Bfgrn to claim that ONLY violent criminals should be incarcerated. He doesn't grasp the fundamental purposes of the penal system.

Does it need work? Of course. Can we do better? I believe that's a fair thing to say, too. But is it the horrendous thing Bfgrn pretends it is? Not really. He likes to spew out the pre-canned liberal talking points he's been spoon fed for so long. The trouble is, he seems to be incapable of thinking through such things on his own in any rational manner.