Posted on 08/15/2014 3:47:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
Was Miranda a blatant example of legislation by the Supreme Court or not?
Does the Constitution really require the police to advise you of your constitutional rights by telling you everything in the Miranda Warning before “anything can and will be used against you”?
Is that what the framers intended? Or is that some legislation introduced and passed by an unelected 9 member legislative body with no authority to do so?
Can you please answer my questions?
Because I am not a lawyer, and therefore have not studied the history of the Miranda warning extensively, I can only offer my observations and some opinion:
Miranda was spurred by the in-the-moment use of police tactics that obscured the right to avoid self-incrimination. By not arresting a subject, and putting them under intensive questioning, the police elicited confessions or incriminating statements which were subsequently used to convict the individual.
You asked me a black and white question based on a very gray premise - that the police tactics were within the intent of the constitution. The question you asked is not fully answerable, as formulated. I am quite certain that this is by your design.
The Miranda rule, therefore, was a strictly defined guard against police interference with the right to avoid self-incrimination. It was a reaction to what was deemed an overreach by the authorities that specifically violated the defendant’s right to not self-incriminate.
It was a restriction placed on the government to enforce upholding an inalienable right of the individual.
So, given this understanding of the root of the problem addressed, and given that it is a restriction on the government (and not the people), Miranda should not be considered a “blatant example of legislation by the Supreme Court”.
If you wish to discount my opinion, please identify another viable remedy for government misconduct in forcing the self-incrimination of a subject (whether because the subject was unaware of their rights or was coerced into waiving them).
Also, please identify why legislation is specifically required to enforce the right against self-incrimination already enshrined in the highest law of the land - the Constitution.
Care to answer my questions, FRiend?
Legislation passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. That is the constitutional method of righting perceived wrongs.
Also, please identify why legislation is specifically required to enforce the right against self-incrimination already enshrined in the highest law of the land - the Constitution.
It is not the necessary duty of the police to inform you of your rights. Your rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. If you don't know what they are, then too bad. Maybe next time you will learn from your mistakes.
The Miranda rule assumes that all people are stupid and all cops are corrupt. It was neither necessary nor constitutional.
Some of us have to work.
In the case of a lack of law regarding the issue, I agree. This was determined to be a violation of existing law - the constitution - so another law is superfluous.
It is not the necessary duty of the police to inform you of your rights. Your rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. If you don't know what they are, then too bad. Maybe next time you will learn from your mistakes.
If ignorance of the law is not viable as an excuse for breaking the law by an individual, then ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse for eliciting a waiving of rights on part of the individual by the government. To see this otherwise, in my opinion, places the government far above the individual in terms of rights and privileges.
We disagree, but I appreciate the fact that we have discussed our disagreement without undue rancor. Thank you for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.