US Attorney General Urges Repeal of Miranda Warning

Madeline

Rookie
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
18,505
Reaction score
1,864
Points
0
Location
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
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:

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,119
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
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.
 
OP
Madeline

Madeline

Rookie
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
18,505
Reaction score
1,864
Points
0
Location
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
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'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?
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,119
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
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.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,035
Reaction score
9,389
Points
2,030
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.
 

Granny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
3,143
Reaction score
813
Points
200
Location
Rocky Top, TN
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.
 
OP
Madeline

Madeline

Rookie
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
18,505
Reaction score
1,864
Points
0
Location
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
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?
 
OP
Madeline

Madeline

Rookie
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
18,505
Reaction score
1,864
Points
0
Location
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
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.
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.
 
OP
Madeline

Madeline

Rookie
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
18,505
Reaction score
1,864
Points
0
Location
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
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.
Granny, a person has to prove to the court that he is without means before he can be appointed a public defender. Rich people and middle class people do not get them...only the poor. Of all the lawyers we can live without, the PDs are not among them. These are highly idealistic, usually exceptionally talented men and women who take on cases that are 99% hopeless...and they do so to protect YOUR rights, to force the state to prove its case because if it does not have to, it will grow in power so that none of us can resist it.

Across the country, PDs and ADAs settle or "plea bargain" all but 1% of their cases. These are not inefficient people, Ma'am.

I know a ton of lawyers doing PD and post-conviction appellate work, especially for those on death row. Most charge less than $60/hr. And most do not get paid in full or on time. Most experienced defense lawyers won't take a Murder One case for under $100,000, fee up front, plus costs.

PDs are a bargain, Granny. There is waste in government, but they aren't causing it.
 
Last edited:

xsited1

Agent P
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
17,746
Reaction score
5,777
Points
198
Location
Little Rock, AR
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. Attorney Generals, etc.

So he comes out of hiding to tell us we no longer need or deserve Miranda warnings?
...
Eric Holder is another one of those people in the Obama Administration whose sole purpose is for comic relief. I wouldn't take anything he says seriously.

 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,090
Points
245
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?
If he is retarded will he understand his Miranda rights?
 
OP
Madeline

Madeline

Rookie
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
18,505
Reaction score
1,864
Points
0
Location
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
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?
If he is retarded will he understand his Miranda rights?
Mild retardation usually considered to be an IQ above 70. Such a person can read and write, though not with much sophistication. People with developmental disorders are among those I would consider vulnerable to police interrogation tactics who might really need to be told, clearly and at the time, that they "have the right to an attorney", etc.

Severely retarded people most likely will never be able to drive, and most likely cannot form the requisite mens rea to commit any crime.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
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. Attorney Generals, etc.

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

YouTube - Eric Holder on Meet The Press - May 9, 2010 - discusses Miranda and other pt 1

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?

I'm ready. I already know my rights. I had the fucking police beat them out of me one time. But it was okay, I puked all over them and their car.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,035
Reaction score
9,389
Points
2,030
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?
If he is retarded will he understand his Miranda rights?
Mild retardation usually considered to be an IQ above 70. Such a person can read and write, though not with much sophistication. People with developmental disorders are among those I would consider vulnerable to police interrogation tactics who might really need to be told, clearly and at the time, that they "have the right to an attorney", etc.

Severely retarded people most likely will never be able to drive, and most likely cannot form the requisite mens rea to commit any crime.
A confession given by a mildly retarded person without benefit of counsel would likely not hold up in court, anyway, for those very reasons.

A severely retarded person, I believe, requires the presence of their legal guardian, much as a minor child would.
 
OP
Madeline

Madeline

Rookie
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
18,505
Reaction score
1,864
Points
0
Location
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
If he is retarded will he understand his Miranda rights?
Mild retardation usually considered to be an IQ above 70. Such a person can read and write, though not with much sophistication. People with developmental disorders are among those I would consider vulnerable to police interrogation tactics who might really need to be told, clearly and at the time, that they "have the right to an attorney", etc.

Severely retarded people most likely will never be able to drive, and most likely cannot form the requisite mens rea to commit any crime.
A confession given by a mildly retarded person without benefit of counsel would likely not hold up in court, anyway, for those very reasons.

A severely retarded person, I believe, requires the presence of their legal guardian, much as a minor child would.
So is it your POV that we will be no worse off if Miranda warnings are no longer required? I disagree, but I'm sure there are rationales for either position.

Why should we eliminate the Miranda warning, Cecilie, if you think we should? Do you share Holder's anxiety that someday, a terrorist will "get off on a technicality"?
 

Dr Gregg

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
201
Points
0
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.
 
OP
Madeline

Madeline

Rookie
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
18,505
Reaction score
1,864
Points
0
Location
Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
Keep it, it might be your friend some day!
It is VERY VERY VERY hard to train anyone, even the most sophisticated adult, to remain silent and demand a lawyer whilst they are in police custody. For 99.9% of adults, this is such a shocking situation they are totally focused on pleasing the cops in hopes of being released, etc. I had a terrible time just getting folks to SHUT UP or even PAUSE BEFORE ANSWERING whilst testifying at a trial or deposition. The VERY strong impulse of almost everyone is to answer questions put to them by any authority figure. For MOST folks, Miranda warnings cue them that the time has come to SHUT UP and demand a lawyer.

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".

Personally, I don't see the "up side" to eliminating Miranda, and I am taken aback that our General Sphinx of Justice has emerged from the shadows only to announce I need to surrender even more of my freedoms.

I'm sick of Patriot Act government bullying...aren't any of you? There has to be a better way to skin the terrorist cat.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top