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