Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Breaking News...FAR right wing Supreme Court strikes down Miranda rights 5-4
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
- Thread starter
- #42
We still hold our same rights but now cases can't be thrown out over it not being invoked by the authorities before the suspect spills his confession and gets off on that technicality...I think one danger is in the cases where peolpe feel intimidated and browbeaten by police questioning and don't realize that they do not need to answer.
>
The Miranda Warning has several statements that must be read.
1) You have the right to remain silent
2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law
3) You have the right to have an attorney present before questioning
4) If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent you
-Do you understand these rights?
Miranda Rights: Do We Keep Them or Toss Them?
Since the introduction of the Miranda Rights, there have been many concerns surrounding the issues of the validity of the law. Some may argue that this law is unconstitutional; while others argue that it is just an "extension" of the constitution and is much needed when dealing with criminal investigations today. The law was enacted by way of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) as the result of a coerced confession by the named petitioner (Miranda v. Arizona, 2006). The question today is: do the Miranda Rights do more harm to the criminal justice system than they give help?
In my opinion, I believe that the Miranda Rights are not all that beneficial to the criminal justice system. The only benefit the law gives is giving the suspect a choice to speak now or to speak when his/her attorney is present.
If someone who commits a crime is not aware of their rights, should that not be his/her responsibility as a citizen of this great country? The Miranda Rights are not mandatory to be given by the arresting police officer but are used as a "safeguard" to make sure that the police have acted within the constitution (O'Connor, 2004).
There are certain petitioners that would like to see the Miranda Rights upheld. One of the major arguments for this is because the general population is used to seeing this procedure given and has assumed that this means the criminal justice system will work properly (O'Connor, 2004).
Another argument for keeping these rights upheld is because it has the ability to be administered with little difficulty (O'Connor, 2004).
With this in mind, the Miranda Rights and their administration is very difficult and may subject the officer to embarrassment in court if the rights are not given properly and not in the entirety laid out by the Supreme Court (O'Connor, 2004).
If an officer does not give the rights in the exact wording that is stated under the law, the whole case can be thrown out as the officer failed in "thoroughly" explaining the suspect's rights.
Miranda Rights Controversy - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
Don't confuse pea brain STATISTS like Frank...in his little world, THIS is what policemen look like...
This draconian ruling attacks the presumption of innocence. Just being arrested implies you are guilty of something. You no longer HAVE Miranda rights. You must know that you can demand them. And it greatly increases having a jury face deciding your word against a police officer. An officer is off the hook if he SAYS you never requested Miranda rights.
Unfortunately for really stupid morons like Frank, there is no awareness that laws and rights need to be viewed not only with skepticism towards criminals, but with equal skepticism towards agents OF the state.
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
so if you don't answer the question asked .... how is one to know what you want ....
- May 20, 2009
- 144,341
- 66,700
- 2,330
"Officers began an interrogation. At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf
Why are facts always so so so cruel to Liberal worldview?
Why?
The facts don't bother me at all, not much has changed from a law enforcement perspective. The reading of the waiver is still part of the process, as I understand; however, I haven't read anything but others opinion of the ruling. I'll wait and see.
btw, I believe you're both stupid and an asshole not based on the issue of the recent decision, you are incapable of understanding anything on a cognitive level, with you it's all emotion; and, using sexual references to a SC justice you disagree with is only one more reason to convince me you're an asshole.
Sonia was the one who said that her Latina vagina qualified her for SCOTUS, not me.
Also, how do you rate her on the qualification spectrum, she claims she has better experience than white men, is she better experienced than black men or Jewish men?
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #45
We still hold our same rights but now cases can't be thrown out over it not being invoked by the authorities before the suspect spills his confession and gets off on that technicality...I think one danger is in the cases where peolpe feel intimidated and browbeaten by police questioning and don't realize that they do not need to answer.
>
The Miranda Warning has several statements that must be read.
1) You have the right to remain silent
2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law
3) You have the right to have an attorney present before questioning
4) If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent you
-Do you understand these rights?
Miranda Rights: Do We Keep Them or Toss Them?
Since the introduction of the Miranda Rights, there have been many concerns surrounding the issues of the validity of the law. Some may argue that this law is unconstitutional; while others argue that it is just an "extension" of the constitution and is much needed when dealing with criminal investigations today. The law was enacted by way of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) as the result of a coerced confession by the named petitioner (Miranda v. Arizona, 2006). The question today is: do the Miranda Rights do more harm to the criminal justice system than they give help?
In my opinion, I believe that the Miranda Rights are not all that beneficial to the criminal justice system. The only benefit the law gives is giving the suspect a choice to speak now or to speak when his/her attorney is present.
If someone who commits a crime is not aware of their rights, should that not be his/her responsibility as a citizen of this great country? The Miranda Rights are not mandatory to be given by the arresting police officer but are used as a "safeguard" to make sure that the police have acted within the constitution (O'Connor, 2004).
There are certain petitioners that would like to see the Miranda Rights upheld. One of the major arguments for this is because the general population is used to seeing this procedure given and has assumed that this means the criminal justice system will work properly (O'Connor, 2004).
Another argument for keeping these rights upheld is because it has the ability to be administered with little difficulty (O'Connor, 2004).
With this in mind, the Miranda Rights and their administration is very difficult and may subject the officer to embarrassment in court if the rights are not given properly and not in the entirety laid out by the Supreme Court (O'Connor, 2004).
If an officer does not give the rights in the exact wording that is stated under the law, the whole case can be thrown out as the officer failed in "thoroughly" explaining the suspect's rights.
Miranda Rights Controversy - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
Don't confuse pea brain STATISTS like Frank...in his little world, THIS is what policemen look like...
This draconian ruling attacks the presumption of innocence. Just being arrested implies you are guilty of something. You no longer HAVE Miranda rights. You must know that you can demand them. And it greatly increases having a jury face deciding your word against a police officer. An officer is off the hook if he SAYS you never requested Miranda rights.
Unfortunately for really stupid morons like Frank, there is no awareness that laws and rights need to be viewed not only with skepticism towards criminals, but with equal skepticism towards agents OF the state.
nice rant. too bad it's stupid. you get the style points for using pea brain, STATIST and draconian in the same post, though.
kudos
- May 20, 2009
- 144,341
- 66,700
- 2,330
We still hold our same rights but now cases can't be thrown out over it not being invoked by the authorities before the suspect spills his confession and gets off on that technicality...I think one danger is in the cases where peolpe feel intimidated and browbeaten by police questioning and don't realize that they do not need to answer.
>
The Miranda Warning has several statements that must be read.
1) You have the right to remain silent
2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law
3) You have the right to have an attorney present before questioning
4) If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent you
-Do you understand these rights?
Miranda Rights: Do We Keep Them or Toss Them?
Since the introduction of the Miranda Rights, there have been many concerns surrounding the issues of the validity of the law. Some may argue that this law is unconstitutional; while others argue that it is just an "extension" of the constitution and is much needed when dealing with criminal investigations today. The law was enacted by way of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) as the result of a coerced confession by the named petitioner (Miranda v. Arizona, 2006). The question today is: do the Miranda Rights do more harm to the criminal justice system than they give help?
In my opinion, I believe that the Miranda Rights are not all that beneficial to the criminal justice system. The only benefit the law gives is giving the suspect a choice to speak now or to speak when his/her attorney is present.
If someone who commits a crime is not aware of their rights, should that not be his/her responsibility as a citizen of this great country? The Miranda Rights are not mandatory to be given by the arresting police officer but are used as a "safeguard" to make sure that the police have acted within the constitution (O'Connor, 2004).
There are certain petitioners that would like to see the Miranda Rights upheld. One of the major arguments for this is because the general population is used to seeing this procedure given and has assumed that this means the criminal justice system will work properly (O'Connor, 2004).
Another argument for keeping these rights upheld is because it has the ability to be administered with little difficulty (O'Connor, 2004).
With this in mind, the Miranda Rights and their administration is very difficult and may subject the officer to embarrassment in court if the rights are not given properly and not in the entirety laid out by the Supreme Court (O'Connor, 2004).
If an officer does not give the rights in the exact wording that is stated under the law, the whole case can be thrown out as the officer failed in "thoroughly" explaining the suspect's rights.
Miranda Rights Controversy - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
Don't confuse pea brain STATISTS like Frank...in his little world, THIS is what policemen look like...
This draconian ruling attacks the presumption of innocence. Just being arrested implies you are guilty of something. You no longer HAVE Miranda rights. You must know that you can demand them. And it greatly increases having a jury face deciding your word against a police officer. An officer is off the hook if he SAYS you never requested Miranda rights.
Unfortunately for really stupid morons like Frank, there is no awareness that laws and rights need to be viewed not only with skepticism towards criminals, but with equal skepticism towards agents OF the state.
This draconian ruling, that Bfgrn couldn't be bothered to read....
- May 20, 2009
- 144,341
- 66,700
- 2,330
Also, I think it's hilarious that people with Obama juice all over their little blue dress, people who FedExed their HealthCare proxy and DNR's for their entire family call me a Statist.
Wait until they reverse ObamaCare
why do you post if you have zero to contribute?
ZOMG!!!
When the po-leece ask if you understand these rights, you have to answer "yes"
WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE
that isn't what the decision says. but thanks for your help.
- May 20, 2009
- 144,341
- 66,700
- 2,330
ZOMG!!!
When the po-leece ask if you understand these rights, you have to answer "yes"
WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE
that isn't what the decision says. but thanks for your help.
You should have read through the thread, but then you wouldn't be Jillian
Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???
it's not a great decision. but it doesn't quite do what you say. i'm also not certain that this decision will go much beyond its facts.
it appears that here, the guy was given his miranda warnings and said he understood. he then let them ask him questions for hours -- nodding at some. saying yes to some. saying no to others. most of the time he was 'pretty quiet'. i'm not sure under those facts, when he was asked if he prayed for the boy he killed, that he hadn't waived his right to be silent.
i haven't read the dissent yet, but i'm not 100% certain i don't agree with the decision UNDER THE FACTS AS DESCRIBED IN KENNEDY'S OPINION. I may find that I don't, but I haven't decided yet.
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
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."
While a agree with the sentiment of the SotaMayor, in practical fact, the back an forth over whether the defendant had taken advantage of their Miranda rights or waived them has been a constant struggle since its inception. I think a bright-line test here is what's needed and hopefully that will be the result. No more guessing about whether the police are violating or not or whether someone has invoked their rights or not.
"You have heard your rights. Do you wish to remain silent or talk to us?"
If the police get one answer, they get to continue, they get the other, they have to stop. Too often the police deliberately don't ask the question because they don't want the answer. If they can lead the prisoner to talk by deception, they do it. Yes, it does require something of the prisoner, but it's hardly too much to ask.
- May 20, 2009
- 144,341
- 66,700
- 2,330
ZOMG!!!
When the po-leece ask if you understand these rights, you have to answer "yes"
WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE
that isn't what the decision says. but thanks for your help.
I was mocking Sonia's dissent.
ZOMG!!!
When the po-leece ask if you understand these rights, you have to answer "yes"
WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE
that isn't what the decision says. but thanks for your help.
You should have read through the thread, but then you wouldn't be Jillian
what and read all your hackery?
lol...
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
- Thread starter
- #55
"Officers began an interrogation. At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf
Why are facts always so so so cruel to Liberal worldview?
Why?
The facts don't bother me at all, not much has changed from a law enforcement perspective. The reading of the waiver is still part of the process, as I understand; however, I haven't read anything but others opinion of the ruling. I'll wait and see.
btw, I believe you're both stupid and an asshole not based on the issue of the recent decision, you are incapable of understanding anything on a cognitive level, with you it's all emotion; and, using sexual references to a SC justice you disagree with is only one more reason to convince me you're an asshole.
good thing you're not all emotional and all.
Hey del, maybe these would help...
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
After briefly scanning the opinion, it does strike me that this ruling brings the "remaining silent" part into line with Davis on the right to counsel part. I thought that there was "right to counsel" case that said there had to be an affirmative request to end interrogation, but I couldn't remember the name of it.
I'm not as sure as Jillian that this case is limited to its facts. It seems to me that these type of facts are repeated over and over by the police. It has become a tactic of theirs. Providing the prisoner a "safe harbor" is really a benefit, not the travesty of justice some are trying to make it out to be.
I'm not as sure as Jillian that this case is limited to its facts. It seems to me that these type of facts are repeated over and over by the police. It has become a tactic of theirs. Providing the prisoner a "safe harbor" is really a benefit, not the travesty of justice some are trying to make it out to be.
- Banned
- #57
What ever happened to the right to keep your mouth shut? If you dont want to incriminate yourself then keep your mouth shut. If you havent got your lies in order to cover your own ass, keep your mouth shut.
If you are to stupid to keep your mouth shut to bad for you. If your to stupid to say "I don't want to talk and I want a lawyer" to bad for you.
Personal responsibility folks, pretty simple concept.
If you are to stupid to keep your mouth shut to bad for you. If your to stupid to say "I don't want to talk and I want a lawyer" to bad for you.
Personal responsibility folks, pretty simple concept.
Last edited:
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
- Thread starter
- #58
What ever happened to the right to keep your mouth shut? If you dont want to incriminate yourself then keep your mouth shut. If you havent got your lies in order to cover your own ass, keep your mouth shut.
If you are to stupid to keep your mouth shut to bad for you. If your to stupid to say "I don't want to talk and I want a lawyer" to bad for you.
Personal responsibility folks, pretty dimple concept.
The right to keep your mouth shut CAN be used against you. Educate yourself on United States v. Frazier...Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence
- Banned
- #59
What ever happened to the right to keep your mouth shut? If you dont want to incriminate yourself then keep your mouth shut. If you havent got your lies in order to cover your own ass, keep your mouth shut.
If you are to stupid to keep your mouth shut to bad for you. If your to stupid to say "I don't want to talk and I want a lawyer" to bad for you.
Personal responsibility folks, pretty dimple concept.
The right to keep your mouth shut CAN be used against you. Educate yourself on United States v. Frazier...Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence
And what part of open you mouth and take responsibility and say "Im not talking and I want my lawyer" did you see me say?
Zoom-boing
Platinum Member
Can the alleged criminal just pantomime locking his lips and throwing away the key?
Only if he's a mute or a certified mime.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 237
- Replies
- 115
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 463
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 420
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 38
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 26
- Replies
- 103
- Views
- 508
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8061
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 470
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-