US Attorney General Urges Repeal of Miranda Warning

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Madeline, May 16, 2010.

  1. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    This is one of the first and only interviews given by Eric Holder, Obama's (and your) Attorney General. In his career before his appointment, he published so little it was not possible to get a fix on this guy's POVs. Up till now, he's been a bit of a blank slate, though one can infer he's approved the activities of the Department of Justice, Assistant U.S. Attorneys General, etc.

    So he comes out of hiding to tell us we no longer need or deserve Miranda warnings?

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNlX_Qa7tXM]YouTube - Eric Holder on Meet The Press - May 9, 2010 - discusses Miranda and other pt 1[/ame]

    Before you assert this would only apply in case of "public emergencies", ask yourself how hard would it be for any cop to claim he perceived a potential "public emergency"?

    Does Miranda have value for you, your family, your neighbor's nitwit 14 year old?

    If so, are you willing to trade that value for a new prosecution tool for Holder et al.?

    What say you?

     
    Last edited: May 17, 2010
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    I don't have a problem with doing away the Miranda warnings. The warnings in and of themself are useless. Simply failing to warn someone shouldn't allow them to not exercise their rights nor should it invalidate confessions

    We should know our rights without them.
     
  3. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    I'm not sure I follow you, Avatar. May I ask you to use an example?

    Cop pulls over my nitwit 16 year old kidlet. (I don't have such a child, but this is a hypothetical.) My goofball son has a baggie of weed in the car, but it is sealed, he has not been smoking and there is no odor detectable by a human.

    After the cop pulls him over and collects his license, etc., he asks my child if he can search the vehicle. My kidlet says "no". If the cop calls for a drug dog and finds reasonable cause, etc., to place my kidlet under arrest, is the Miranda warning necessary to protect him at that point?

    Some reasonable people say no, everyone knows their rights and Miranda is just a technicality.

    I disagree.

    What say you?
     
  4. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,136
    Thanks Received:
    10,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,684
    I say read "The Onion Field"
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    Miranda wouldn't protect you from a probable cause search. Miranda only prevents statements you make to be admitted as evidence if they didn't read you your rights.

    This again is stupid because as Americans we should know our rights and not having the warnings should not prevent us from exercising those rights if we choose.
     
  6. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    I'm trying to think of another essential right the people of this country have to be reminded they have in order to exercise it, and I'm just coming up blank.
     
  7. Granny
    Offline

    Granny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,121
    Thanks Received:
    785
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Rocky Top, TN
    Ratings:
    +1,255
    I'm not sure about Miranda rights other than as a technicality. What really pisses me off is the cost of "public defenders." I think people should have defense counsel , yes, but it's getting to the point that it's costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Not only do we pay the District Attorneys (acting for the state) who prosecute criminal cases, etc., we're also on the hook for paying defense counsel. It's getting to the point where defense counsel is running up fees and expenses far and above what the tab is for the prosecution.

    You know, when you have very clear videos of someone beating the holy crap out of someone else, or robbing a bank, or whatever, and witnesses out the yin-yang and the perpetrator pleads poverty and "not guilty," I don't think they're entitled to a multi-million dollar defense.
     
  8. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Sure thing. Now?

    Does it bear on this convo or are you looking to improve my mind, miss?
     
  9. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Not all Americans have 20 years' uninterrupted viewing of "Law and Order" to their credit, Avatar. Suppose my kidlet is mildly retarded? Does that alter your POV?
     
  10. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    Usually when you vote, you'll see signage that your vote is private and no one can ascertain what it is. But yes, I agree, very few times are you told by a government official that you have certain rights. Some judges will stop you from testifying if they think you're about to confess to a crime and ask if you'd like to confab with a lawyer, but that practice is not universal.

    Miranda is unique because it is given by the cop/custodian when custody commences. Its proper administration controls the admissibility of statements made by you as well as evidence developed via those statements. Holder's bitch is that by tossing such evidence, we may someday see a terrorist walk on Miranda grounds..."getting off on a technicality".

    I say we have TONS of law sufficient to cope with terrorists and can afford to keep Miranda for the benefit of people who, through shock in the moment or their particular situation in life, are more vulnerable to police interrogation tactics.
     

Share This Page