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.
I'll have to read the decisions before forming a real opinion but I have to say I find this surprising.
if you're not going to have a knee jerk response, i'm afraid i'll have to have you escorted from the thread.
sorry
I almost forgot.Let me try again:
This sucks! They're destroying our great nation, the un-American terrorist loving activist clowns. Damn those rightwingnut conservatard commie fascist socialist neocon fucktards!! Damn them to HELL!!!!!
Better?
Fuck you Frank, you right wing STATIST scum bag.
ObamaCare IS Statism
This Supreme Court ruling REMOVES individual rights and empowers the STATE...if you support it YOU are a STATIST Frank.
YES del, it is. Maybe you need to cut down on the Benzo's, it might lessen your comatose state.
projecting is a fool's game. hence your expertise.
Removing people's rights are no big deal, right del?
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."
Fuck you Frank, you right wing STATIST scum bag.
ObamaCare IS Statism
This Supreme Court ruling REMOVES individual rights and empowers the STATE...if you support it YOU are a STATIST Frank.
The Founding Fathers fought the British to get their Miranda Warnings! This is a sham and Sonia's wise Latina vagina says so!
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
I'll have to read the decisions before forming a real opinion but I have to say I find this surprising.
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
Miranda Rights
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Based on this right, the Supreme Court has determined that criminal suspects cannot be subject to custodial interrogations without first being informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to have defense counsel. When a suspect is taken into custody, the Miranda warnings must be given before any interrogation takes place.
The primary purpose of the Miranda warnings is to ensure that an accused is aware of the constitutional right to remain silent before making statements to the police. Two conditions must be satisfied in order to invoke the warnings constitutionally required by Miranda. First, the suspect must have been in custody; second, the suspect must have been subjected to police interrogation. The definition of interrogation extends only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
A custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. With this in mind, what has come to be known as Miranda warnings are not only necessary in the classic arrest situation, but also serve to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. The initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned. Thus, the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation.
There are a few caveats: For instance, a "noncustodial interrogation" will not require Miranda warnings simply because the interrogation took place in a coercive environment. Otherwise, any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. In addition, a noncustodial interview is not transformed into a custodial one simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect.
Miranda Rights
"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?
"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.
Wait until they reverse ObamaCare
Fuck you Frank, you right wing STATIST scum bag.
