Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fifty years later, the Miranda decision hasn’t accomplished what the Supreme Court intended
Washington Post ^ | 6/13/2016 | Bruce Peabody

Posted on 06/13/2016 8:41:31 AM PDT by Borges

Fifty years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona. The decision requires police to inform suspects of their constitutional rights to remain silent and obtain an attorney before being questioned.

Miranda remains perhaps the most well-known case in criminal law, thanks in no small part to such TV shows as “Law and Order” and movies like “21 Jump Street.” But that’s a bit like saying the electoral college is widely familiar. Most Americans know it’s important, but they are a little fuzzy on the details.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 06/13/2016 8:41:31 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Borges

Those cuffs are way too loose. The guy could easily slip his hands out.


2 posted on 06/13/2016 8:44:31 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

The Miranda case was such a paradox. If the court demands that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, why would they insist that the same rights that they are not ignorant of, be read at the time of arrest?


3 posted on 06/13/2016 8:49:55 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Sounds like the writer wants to make cops teach a course in Constitutional law before questioning any suspect:

“The opinion only makes police tell suspects about a small subset of their constitutional rights, often by rote. Miranda does not require that the police make sure the accused understands how his or her liberties operate or what the consequences may be of talking to police anyway.

“Why do we allow this odd state of affairs?”


4 posted on 06/13/2016 8:50:12 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

The police have a hundred ways around Miranda, and a hundred ways of lying to you and entrapping you.

Miranda means nothing nowadays. The protections embodied by Miranda have been whittled down to nothing.


5 posted on 06/13/2016 8:59:11 AM PDT by T-Bone Texan (Don't be a lone wolf. Form up small leaderlesss cells ASAP !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

Despite Miranda, they still know how to extract a false confession without leaving any marks. By the way, the verb “to extract” seems to be primarily used in the law enforcement and dental professions.

Ernesto Miranda, after being released from prison, was killed in a bar fight. Only one of the suspects was arrested. I presume that when the police arrested him, they read him his Miranda rights.


6 posted on 06/13/2016 9:00:33 AM PDT by henkster (Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Translation...there are *still* “people of color” going to prison.
7 posted on 06/13/2016 9:29:54 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Obamanomics:Trickle Up Poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Miranda was a case which illustrated the ACLU’s influence over the Warren Court. The majority opinion was copied word for word from the amicus brief of the ACLU. I don’t have any real problem with Miranda as it just insures informed concent before a suspect talks to the police. What would be a bridge too far for me would be to require the presence of an attorney at any police/suspect contact. #BLM would love such a thing.


8 posted on 06/13/2016 9:36:20 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

People are polite, by and large.

When asked a question it is natural to respond.

How to respond was linked here once upon a time ago. It works. A former cop has seminars about it, and you can find them online.


9 posted on 06/13/2016 10:07:50 AM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: T-Bone Texan

Yep. Watch the youtube video, “never talk to tbe police.”


10 posted on 06/13/2016 10:08:01 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

After reading the article, it appears your assessment of the article is correct.

My previous statement still stands, however.

Look up that former cop and how to talk to police. You cannot say anything to them about what they want to know. But you can still remain polite.


11 posted on 06/13/2016 10:09:25 AM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom

Youtube. Don’t talk to cops part 1.


12 posted on 06/13/2016 10:09:59 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: henkster

The only thing I’d quibble about is the ‘false’.

“It’s looking pretty bad for you at this point. I’m sure that you didn’t mean for it to turn out this way. Why don’t you tell us your side of the story. Maybe if you explain what really happened, we can figure something out.”

Then, when you type up the confession, put in a couple of mistakes. If the perp doesn’t pick up on them, point them out so the perp can make hand written corrections and initial them. That takes care of the ‘I didn’t read it. I just signed what they put in front of me and told me too.’

While ‘shut up and lawyer up’ is the smart thing to do, most criminals think that they can explain it away. And it will frequently get them a softer sentence for being cooperative.


13 posted on 06/13/2016 10:50:20 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Borges
I gave Miranda Rights to countless numbers of people. Most of them you couldn't shut up. The others, I didn't care if they said anything or not. I had enough evidence on them already.

And I didn't have to lie to get a confession either.

BTW; you can't whittle down the MR. Their on a card that your suppose to read to the suspect. They are asked if they understand their Rights? If not you explain them in a bit more detail. If they ignore you, you lock them up.

Ed

14 posted on 06/13/2016 10:53:53 AM PDT by husky ed (FOX NEWS ALERT "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" THIS HAS BEEN A FOX NEWS ALERT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

There are definitely false confessions. They are not as common as the false “eyewitness identification.” (Most of the DNA exonerations have been on cases where there was a false identification.) But they do exist. The police tend to get a theory of “what happened” into their head fairly quickly on an investigation, and once they decide a crime was committed by a particular person, they zero in on them to the exclusion of all other possible alternatives. And the police are trained that they have to break down the psychological barriers of denial in a suspect. It works very well to get guilty people to confess, but when faced with the same techniques, sometimes they work on innocent people too.


15 posted on 06/13/2016 11:23:25 AM PDT by henkster (Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: henkster

A fair number of the DNA alleged exonerations involve confessions.

I’m predicting a scandal in a few years over these false negatives. Attorneys are already in a position to challenge positive DNA results as unreliable in paternity cases. If the positives can be unreliable, so can the negatives.


16 posted on 06/13/2016 11:39:16 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
Don't Talk to Police
17 posted on 06/13/2016 11:57:09 AM PDT by NorthMountain (A plague o' both your houses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I prefer this video.

Chris Rock ~ How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police

18 posted on 06/13/2016 12:03:36 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Bingo!


19 posted on 06/13/2016 12:15:58 PM PDT by chesley (The right to protest is not the right to disrupt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Borges

>landmark case Miranda v. Arizona. The decision requires police to inform.... of their constitutional rights...

1) SCOTUS doesn’t get to ‘intend’ *anything*. They are to rule on the merits of Law and Constitutionality (moreso the latter than former)

2) How ‘bout a case where the JUDGES are required to re-inform the jury their ability (obligation) to judge not only the case but the LAW (IE: Jury nullification)?? Instead, we have ‘judges orders’ and the like


20 posted on 06/13/2016 12:46:06 PM PDT by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson