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

[del]

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?

much, thank you!

 

[del]

big ******* deal

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 counterintuitively, 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."

But, the suspects must still affirmatively state that they understand their rights, right Sonia?

If that's the basis of her argument, then that wise Latina vagina is not all it's cracked up to be

 

[Bfgrn]

Wait until they reverse ObamaCare

**** 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.

 

[del]

**** 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.

so by stating that they intend to remain silent, they lose the right to remain silent? is that your argument? benzos, indeed.

 

[Bfgrn]

big ******* deal

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?

 

[del]

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?

if you weren't so mindnumbingly partisan, you'd be able to see no rights have been removed, sotomayor's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

have another xanax and call me a *STATIST* pig if it makes you feel better; god knows i don't care.

 

[California Girl]

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."

The British ended the 'right' to silence years ago. The country has not yet collapsed because of it. In fact, it works better. In England and Wales, adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused:

fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

**** 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.

Try actually reading the ruling you ******* retard

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Founding Fathers fought the British to get their Miranda Warnings! This is a sham and Sonia's wise Latina vagina says so!

Frank, you're not only stupid you're truly an asshole.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Helgert asked Thompkins to read the fifth warning outloud. App. 8a. Thompkins complied. Helgert later said this was to ensure that Thompkins could read, and Helgert concluded that Thompkins understood English"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf

Right off the bat, Thompkins is smarter than Bfgrn

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Helgert then read the other four Miranda warnings out loud and asked Thompkins to sign the form to demonstrate that he understood his rights."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf

Again, Thompkins proves he's smarter than Bfgrn AND Wry Catcher

 

[Valerie]

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"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?

 

[California Girl]

I'll have to read the decisions before forming a real opinion but I have to say I find this surprising.

Honestly, next you'll be telling us that we shouldn't base opinions on hysteria and media spin.

*Tuts*

 

[Valerie]

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation,Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” Id., at 11a, 153a. Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” Id., at 11a. Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” Id., at 11a, 153a. Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Id., at 153a. Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf

ZOMG!!! This breaches the imaginary wall of separation between church and state! How can the po-leece mention the "G" word! Set him free!

 

[Wry Catcher]

"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.

 

[del]

"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.

 

[WillowTree]

Wait until they reverse ObamaCare

**** you Frank, you right wing STATIST scum bag.

EZ ALERT EZ ALERT EZ ALERT