US Attorney General Urges Repeal of Miranda Warning

Miranda warnings also cue a person that custody has commenced. Without the warning, it can be hard as hell for anyone to determine whether they are "free to leave".


True, but there are some situations that are still defacto custodial, just not custodial for purposes of Miranda, at least not under the federal constitution.

There is NO Constitutional need to abrogate Miranda, and a case by the SC several years even spoke of stare decisis, and they refused to overrule themselves.

Why not just UNincorporate the Bill of Rights, as it was in Barron v. Baltimore, maybe Holder would like that??
 
Miranda warnings also cue a person that custody has commenced. Without the warning, it can be hard as hell for anyone to determine whether they are "free to leave".


True, but there are some situations that are still defacto custodial, just not custodial for purposes of Miranda, at least not under the federal constitution.

There is NO Constitutional need to abrogate Miranda, and a case by the SC several years even spoke of stare decisis, and they refused to overrule themselves.

Why not just UNincorporate the Bill of Rights, as it was in Barron v. Baltimore, maybe Holder would like that??

Downright cheery to hear Holder doesn't think we need all these messy, pain in the ass rights isn't it lawbuff? Where did Obama get this guy? The Nixon School?
 
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.

I don't know what world you spend your time in, but here in New York, public defenders cover too many cases at once, and barely have enough time to learn their clients names, let alone the case. If anything, we need to spend MORE money on public defenders, not less.
 
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.

I agree with you, but sadly many americans are complete and utter morons. By know you should know, if you have watched just a little bit of TV, the right to remain silent, and right to attorney part of it.

I don't consider it my problem to protect other people from their own stupidity. I sure don't consider it worth endangering the public by encouraging criminals to manipulate the system, or by releasing them back onto the streets on a technicality.
 
Miranda warnings also cue a person that custody has commenced. Without the warning, it can be hard as hell for anyone to determine whether they are "free to leave".


True, but there are some situations that are still defacto custodial, just not custodial for purposes of Miranda, at least not under the federal constitution.

There is NO Constitutional need to abrogate Miranda, and a case by the SC several years even spoke of stare decisis, and they refused to overrule themselves.

Why not just UNincorporate the Bill of Rights, as it was in Barron v. Baltimore, maybe Holder would like that??

Corret me if I'm wrong, but when "custody commences", don't they TELL you that you're under arrest? I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that when you're arrested, they have to say so, and state what the charge is.
 
Miranda warnings also cue a person that custody has commenced. Without the warning, it can be hard as hell for anyone to determine whether they are "free to leave".


True, but there are some situations that are still defacto custodial, just not custodial for purposes of Miranda, at least not under the federal constitution.

There is NO Constitutional need to abrogate Miranda, and a case by the SC several years even spoke of stare decisis, and they refused to overrule themselves.

Why not just UNincorporate the Bill of Rights, as it was in Barron v. Baltimore, maybe Holder would like that??

Corret me if I'm wrong, but when "custody commences", don't they TELL you that you're under arrest? I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that when you're arrested, they have to say so, and state what the charge is.

Cecilie, police custody is not the same as arrest. The grounds for detaining a person for questioning are lower than the grounds for arrest. If grounds for detention exist, most jurisdictions can hold you for up to 24 hours without issuing an arrest warrant...and some criminal proceedings begin instead with an indictment handed down by a grand jury, not an arrest warrant.

This is complex stuff, and that very complexity is one reason I think we need to keep Miranda. To the average person, these are hardly "technicalities".
 
But why do people think it needs to be removed? I mean, they tell you your rights, what/s the harm in that? That people actually know and may enforce their rights?
 
Corret me if I'm wrong, but when "custody commences", don't they TELL you that you're under arrest? I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that when you're arrested, they have to say so, and state what the charge is.

"Custody" is NOT necessarily equateable to arrest. "Arrest" in the "traditional" sense, is the transportaion of a preson to a facility to answer for a crime. Although an arrest may encompass other factors, such as a placement in the back of a patrol car, as this is a definite custody, we will speak of a formal charging here.

The definition of arrest, although not a basic academic one, as it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the accepted definition applies here as we speak of.

I live in Ohio and our Code says when a person is arrested without a warrant, yes, the need to be told the reason, however, failure to do so will not void the arrest.

"Custody" and "detention" for on scene invsetigation purposes, are interchangeable.

Either can be based on LESS than probable cause, which is the standard for an arrest.
 
Cecilie, police custody is not the same as arrest. The grounds for detaining a person for questioning are lower than the grounds for arrest. If grounds for detention exist, most jurisdictions can hold you for up to 24 hours without issuing an arrest warrant

If I may my friend, jailhouse detention for questioning on less than probable cause is UNconstitutional, there is no such thing as "investigative detention" in the U.S., see Dunaway v. New York, 1979, USSC.
 
Anyone who is smart knows that if the police ask you anything, you say nothing. Even if you have done nothing wrong. If you are taken into custody, you continue to say nothing and you conduct all of your activities via an attorney.

This is how an educated person cooporates with law enforcement if they are arrested or interviewed:
"I will be glad to answer all of your questions under the advisement of my attorney".

For those who are not smart or who have little common sense, we have the Miranda Warning.

If you hear anyone recommending it's elimination in order to protect us from terrorism... maybe it's time to begin questioning who the real terrorists are ....those who are taking formal steps to minimize or limit our freedoms.
 
Cecilie, police custody is not the same as arrest. The grounds for detaining a person for questioning are lower than the grounds for arrest. If grounds for detention exist, most jurisdictions can hold you for up to 24 hours without issuing an arrest warrant

If I may my friend, jailhouse detention for questioning on less than probable cause is UNconstitutional, there is no such thing as "investigative detention" in the U.S., see Dunaway v. New York, 1979, USSC.

*Curtseys*

Thankies for the correction, lawbuff.
 
Anyone who is smart knows that if the police ask you anything, you say nothing. Even if you have done nothing wrong. If you are taken into custody, you continue to say nothing and you conduct all of your activities via an attorney.

This is how an educated person cooporates with law enforcement if they are arrested or interviewed:
"I will be glad to answer all of your questions under the advisement of my attorney".

For those who are not smart or who have little common sense, we have the Miranda Warning.

If you hear anyone recommending it's elimination in order to protect us from terrorism... maybe it's time to begin questioning who the real terrorists are ....those who are taking formal steps to minimize or limit our freedoms.

Hear, hear!

:clap2:
 
Blank slate ?
Only if you have been in the tank.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRbTtjoa0JY]YouTube - Eric Holder, I Would Restrict The First Amendment On The Internet[/ame]
 
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.

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?

Your mildly retarded kid is protected by laws other than miranda...If your kid refuses to let the cops search his car the cops THEN NEED PROBABLE CAUSE to demonstrate the need to search the car. So give us another "suppose my" or "what if".
 
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.

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?

Your mildly retarded kid is protected by laws other than miranda...If your kid refuses to let the cops search his car the cops THEN NEED PROBABLE CAUSE to demonstrate the need to search the car. So give us another "suppose my" or "what if".

Okay. My nitwit uncle is in his 70's and has never been in trouble with the law. He and my nitwit son are driving together and my nitwit son has a baggie of weed in his luggage, which is in the trunk. The cops pull over the vehicle while my uncle is driving.

Educated, charming and law abiding, my uncle has ZERO experience with law enforcement. If asked for his consent to search, my uncle gives it, 10 out of 10 times. When the cops find the weed, my uncle, who is a jeweler by trade, is unaware that he is as guilty of possession as my nitwit son is. Trying to maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, he urps up all sorts of incriminating statements against his own interest.

It is contrary to human experience to resist law enforcement for those of us who are law abiding. In general, the only folks savvy enough to act on their rights, apart from lawyers, are experienced criminals.

Miranda is needed and should remain.
 
Last edited:
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?

Your mildly retarded kid is protected by laws other than miranda...If your kid refuses to let the cops search his car the cops THEN NEED PROBABLE CAUSE to demonstrate the need to search the car. So give us another "suppose my" or "what if".

Okay. My nitwit uncle is in his 70's and has never been in trouble with the law. He and my nitwit son are driving together and my nitwit son has a baggie of weed in his luggage, which is in the trunk. The cops pull over the vehicle while my uncle is driving.

Educated, charming and law abiding, my uncle has ZERO experience with law enforcement. If asked for his consent to search, my uncle gives it, 10 out of 10 times. When the cops find the weed, my uncle, who is a jeweler by trade, is unaware that he is as guilty of possession as my nitwit son is. Trying to maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, he urps up all sorts of incriminating statements against his own interest.

It is contrary to human experience to resist law enforcement for those of us who are law abiding. In general, the only folks savvy enough to act on their rights, apart from lawyers, are experienced criminals.

Miranda is needed and should remain.

Any decent lawyer could get your uncle off based on the fact that he wasn't mirandized after the cops found the weed.
 
Are you discussing Holder's desire to forego mirandizing terror suspects including U.S. citizens or the potential for abuse on the general populace at some point.
 

Forum List

Back
Top