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 ...
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep. Watch the youtube video, “never talk to tbe police.”
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.
Youtube. Don’t talk to cops part 1.
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.
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
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.
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.
Bingo!
>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
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.