Biff_Poindexter
Diamond Member
Expected reversal of Miranda requires states to step up on policing
While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for aborti…
thehill.com
"While all eyes are focused on the recently leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which would end constitutional protections for abortion rights, a lesser-known case looks likely to erode another constitutional precedent—Miranda rights. This case, Vega v. Tekoh, asks whether a person’s federal constitutional rights are violated if a police officer fails to inform them of their rights to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, and to be protected against self-incrimination whenever the person is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. The Supreme Court now seems poised to reverse its decision in Miranda, which, much like Dobbs, would give states—and, to a significant extent, individual towns—the power to decide an important question of policy: whether police should be legally required to give these warnings. Whether one agrees with the overturning of Miranda’s constitutional protections, the ruling shines a light on the power of each state to reimagine and redefine policing. Yet too many states and towns are ill prepared to take on the responsibility of regulating policing, having long preferred to defer the task to the Supreme Court."
About time this bad legal ruling is up for being overturned.....There should be no such thing as miranda rights -- police should be able to decide for themselves if they want to afford criminals certain rights...not the federal government....I trust the cops to do what is right more than I trust the government who often sides with criminals....how many times have people been able to get away with crimes just because some cop didnt' read them they stupid Miranda rights. And let us not forget, the guy this right was named after was a filthy wetback rapist...The guy even confessed and was convicted...but the pro-rape Supreme Court overturned it because of this whole long history of police denying 5th amendment rights to marginalized people and coercing them into confessions, blah blah blah...if criminals are too dumb to assert the 5th amendment rights, oh well, it isn't the cops job to do it...
Warren wrote: "Expecting these men to challenge armed authority figures would treat hundreds of years of racial discrimination and police abuse as if they did not exist. Against this backdrop, without adequate protections, “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice”
This was absolutely false then and it's even more false now.....Cops didn't go around abusing people back in the past based on race and they definitely don't go around trying to force confessions out of innocent people or doing anything to try to intimidate innocent people or "trick" or "trap" them.....if anyone is the victim of that type of abuse, it isn't the poor or marginalized people -- it's the privileged that are more abused by law enforcement....how soon we forget how the FBI tricked the sitting National Security Advisor into pleading to a felony...twice....so yes, when it comes to FEDS, there definitely needs to be more limits put on them...but local cops, they have too many restrictions on them already....more freedom for them to do their jobs equals more freedom for the citizens as well...
