Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 174

Thread: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations

  1. #51
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Why do people keep on talking about lawyers? That is a different right that has nothing to do with this. A suspect has a right to an attorney. A suspect has a right to remain silent. These are two completely separate rights and you can invoke one without the other. For whatever reason this suspect chose not to ask for a lawyer. That is his choice. It has no bearing, however, on whether he may choose to remain silent or not.

    As to the case itself... He went two entire hours without answering questions, that clearly to me seems to be that he decided to remain silent. Nowhere in the Miranda rights does it say you have to officially say you're keeping silent. If you don't talk for that long a period, it should be obvious. The police were coercing this man, plain and simple. I don't see how you could take hours worth of silence as anything other than invocation of that right.
    I'm just not sympathetic here. He was able to go 2 hours without answering questions. But then he chose to answer a question. Miranda says that you have the right to remain silent and that anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. So the guy remained silent for two hours and then said something that was used against him. What's the issue here?

    I have to admit that I haven't read the facts of the case. I'll read them soon and see if my mind is changed, but right now, I am with the majority of the Supreme Court.

  2. #52
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    First point: I don't feel bad for the guy at all. He is almost 100 % certainly guilty. The issue to me is not whether justice is served in his particular case, but whether the ruling itself is right. Short answer...I am torn, I can see both sides. You are told anything you say can be used against you, but as the little of the dissent mentioned in the article says, having to speak to say you wish to remain silent is counter intuitive.
    And I, like the Supreme Court, have to say that the whole premise that "OMFG He has to say something in order to inform the detectives whether or not he wants to waive or invoke his rights! That violates his right to remain silent!" is rather ridiculous. The reason is simple. Informing the detectives that he does not want to talk to them is NOT being a witness against himself. Nowhere in the constitution does it say, "You have the right to remain silent." The right to remain silent only applies to questioning the suspect/defendant on the matter that they are being arrested for.
    Just like the courts have acknowledge that the right to remain silent does not apply to standard booking questions (ie name, dob, address, phone number, place of birth, height, weight, eye color, race, etc).

    Quote Originally Posted by Midwest Lib View Post
    I'm with Redress on this one. He certainly appears to be guilty, but I don't like the standard that this may set. First of all, I could potentially see more "trickery" being used if one is allowed to grill a suspect for hours on end. I don't say this to defend guilty criminals, but to protect the less intelligent innocent suspects. I feel that if even one innocent person is wrongly convicted because of this change that it will be a great blow to our personal liberty.
    This has nothing to do with allowing police to grill a suspect for hours. It has everything to do with police being able to ask questions unless the individual informs the investigators that he does not wish to speak with them, or that he wishes to have an attorney present during questioning. It is already standard practice to ASK someone whether or not they wish to answer questions, or whether they wish to have an attorney present during questioning. Remaining silent is not an answer to the question. Being required to answer the question is NOT violating the 5th amendment.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    You don't think that them continuing to question him after he refused to answer any questions counted as him trying to invoke his right of privacy? That's how I see it. he tried to invoke his right to privacy and the police wouldn't let him.
    He didn't let them know one way or the other. If you specifically say Im not talking to you or Im not talking to you unless I have a lawyer present, then the police are required to move on to their next action.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  4. #54
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I'm just not sympathetic here. He was able to go 2 hours without answering questions. But then he chose to answer a question. Miranda says that you have the right to remain silent and that anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. So the guy remained silent for two hours and then said something that was used against him. What's the issue here?

    I have to admit that I haven't read the facts of the case. I'll read them soon and see if my mind is changed, but right now, I am with the majority of the Supreme Court.
    From what I could tell, the cops just weren't ceasing the questioning. 2 hours, 10 hours, how long was it going to go? The cops just would not stop questioning him, and wasn't taking his silence as an acceptable answer. I think it bordered on coercion.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  5. #55
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by goldcatt View Post
    If the case were about the right to an attorney, you would be correct. But it's about the right to be "silent". Before this case there were two different standards for invoking each of those rights. A suspect in custody had to specifically ask for an attorney, and then questioning would cease. But in order to invoke silence, all he had to do is stay....silent. Makes sense, right?

    Now the Majority in this case has raised the standard for invoking silence. The right still exists, it hasn't been weakened, but now you have to ask for it.
    There is no "right to remain silent" in the constitution. This "right to remain silent" is a creation of the Supreme Court. Guess who just made a ruling to clairfy a problem with their own self created "right"? Yes, the supreme court.
    Sotomayor's position is weak, as it places the burden not on the constitution, but on the Supreme Court's own ruling, and the dictionary definition on the word "silent".
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  6. #56
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    He didn't let them know one way or the other. If you specifically say Im not talking to you or Im not talking to you unless I have a lawyer present, then the police are required to move on to their next action.
    The Miranda rights never say you must specifically declare you're using your rights. One would think that two hours of silence has made that clear enough.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  7. #57
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    There is no "right to remain silent" in the constitution. This "right to remain silent" is a creation of the Supreme Court. Guess who just made a ruling to clairfy a problem with their own self created "right"? Yes, the supreme court.
    Sotomayor's position is weak, as it places the burden not on the constitution, but on the Supreme Court's own ruling, and the dictionary definition on the word "silent".
    Now I will not insult you by claiming that you've never actually read the constitution, but somehow in your reading you seem to have missed the fifth amendment which claims "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    We usually say right to remain silent, since "right to not be compelled to be a witness against yourself" doesn't roll off the tongue as well
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  8. #58
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Read down through the thread which conveniently ended up with your post. Personally struggling to figure out where exactly there are any grounds for outrage/concern here. The obligation of the police is to read the Miranda rights (before any statements by the perp can be used in court against him). As long as the rights were appropriately administered the police have fulfilled their obligation.

    Never heard of any legal constraint placed on LEOs that they need to be silent....



    .
    Exactly. Unless the individual specifically invokes their rights under the constitution, anything they say in response to a question until that time is usable against them. And, if they answer questions and then decide they want to invoke, anything they said prior can be used against them.

    Not to mention, that if someone starts talking before they have been read miranda, and not in response to a question, then that can also be used as it is a "spontaneous utterance".
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Is that written somewhere? Never really thought about it before. After a suspect has been read his Miranda rights he certainly isn't required to respond to a question. But is there some legal dictate that the cops have to stop talking to him? Be curious to see how that is stated in the law.....



    .
    The Supreme Court has ruled on it that if someone requests an attorney present as per the 6th Amendment, then police are not permitted to ask any questions until the subject is provided with legal counsel. If they continue after the individual has requested legal counsel and the individual answers a question, then that information is not permissible because the individual has had their 6th amendment right violated.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  10. #60
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Exactly. Unless the individual specifically invokes their rights under the constitution, anything they say in response to a question until that time is usable against them. And, if they answer questions and then decide they want to invoke, anything they said prior can be used against them.

    Not to mention, that if someone starts talking before they have been read miranda, and not in response to a question, then that can also be used as it is a "spontaneous utterance".
    Before this ruling, that was never clearly the case. If I'm using my freedom of speech, do I have to say "This is my freedom of speech" before saying it? That's never been the case for any other right.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •