• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Groucho said:
The problem in this case is that the defendant THOUGHT we WAS exercising his right -- he remained silent and refused to talk. The police refused to accept that and kept questioning him and he eventually broke down.

I mean, if you're questioning someone and they refuse to say a word, isn't it obvious that they want to remain silent? Why do they have to say "I am remaining silent"?
Click to expand...

As stated. He could have been expressing his desire not to answer those specific questions.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

FilmFestGuy said:
He should be held without interrogation until his attorney is present.

This is the worst Court in my lifetime and I'm betting history will put this decision and the Citizens United decision up there with the Slaughterhouse Cases as some of the worst decisions in Court history.
Click to expand...

So you support self admitted murderers to get off on murder because of some BS loophole like this?

So you support criminals and loopholes. You don't happen to be a defense attorney do you?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

FilmFestGuy said:
If it were limited in scope, I would have no problem either. But it's broadness concerns me. The Roberts Court did the same thing with Citizens United in that they made the ruling SOOO broad that it's a complete alteration of the present state of being when it didn't need to be.

Now I could easily see innocent people being badgered or tricked into confessions or things that sound like confessions and incriminating themselves simply because they didn't say the right words.
Click to expand...

Ummm... can you explain how innocent people are going to be tricked into a confession? Nobody wants a person to confess to a crime they really didn't commit. Nobody wants to convict and innocent person less than the police.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
aps said:
Has someone posted about this new ruling?

Here is where the liberal judges on the Court and I disagree. I totally support the ruling in this case, which was decided by the righties and Anthony Kennedy. Sotomayor is apparently furious about it. Sorry, toots. ;)



Those who disagree with the ruling, can you tell me why it's a bad decision? This defendant voluntarily said something in response to a question.
Click to expand...

I don't see any problem with this ruling as long as the invocation of your right to remain silent also comes with the power to cease the interrogation by police at the moment you do it.
 
jallman said:
I don't see any problem with this ruling as long as the invocation of your right to remain silent also comes with the power to cease the interrogation by police at the moment you do it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

rivrrat said:
He didn't ask for a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Which means the police should have stopped interrogating him until he received one.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

The best advice I got from my lawyer when I shot someone;

"Keep your mouth shut and dont say anything"
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

samsmart said:
Which means the police should have stopped interrogating him until he received one.
Click to expand...

I am confused. If he didn't ask for a lawyer why should they have stopped interrogating him until he received one?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

samsmart said:
Which means the police should have stopped interrogating him until he received one.
Click to expand...

Erm.. he doesn't GET one until he ASKS for one. He didn't ask for one, so one wasn't ever going to come.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

soccerboy22 said:
I am confused. If he didn't ask for a lawyer why should they have stopped interrogating him until he received one?
Click to expand...

Because anyone accused of a crime should initially be considered a "victim". (Am only recently starting to understand how this works....)



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

rivrrat said:
Erm.. he doesn't GET one until he ASKS for one. He didn't ask for one, so one wasn't ever going to come.
Click to expand...

I think he might have read your comment as "He did ask for a lawyer".
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

samsmart said:
Which means the police should have stopped interrogating him until he received one.
Click to expand...

Never asked for one.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

I was involved ina case once. I was arrested and made it clear I will wait for my attorney to get there to answer any questions.

A few hours later they put me in a room with a cop. He proceded to say this. "I know you are playing the game you want to play it but I have to tell you that everybody I go after I put in jail." His refference of my rights as a game disturbed me.

He knew I had requested my attorney but he was there to threaten me that if I didn't give up my rights he would do whatever it took to put me in jail. Just using statistics it is impossible taht 100% of suspects he went after were guilty. He didn't care about my rights and I would bet many cops are the same.

I find it hard to beleive that somebody that had been interrogated for 8 or 10 hours never asked for an attorney.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Mason66 said:
I was involved ina case once. I was arrested and made it clear I will wait for my attorney to get there to answer any questions.

A few hours later they put me in a room with a cop. He proceded to say this. "I know you are playing the game you want to play it but I have to tell you that everybody I go after I put in jail." His refference of my rights as a game disturbed me.

He knew I had requested my attorney but he was there to threaten me that if I didn't give up my rights he would do whatever it took to put me in jail. Just using statistics it is impossible taht 100% of suspects he went after were guilty. He didn't care about my rights and I would bet many cops are the same.

I find it hard to beleive that somebody that had been interrogated for 8 or 10 hours never asked for an attorney.
Click to expand...

If he didn't, he is pretty dumb.
Did you tell the officer to back off or you will file a complaint?
Just asking, were you guilty?
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Mason66 said:
I was involved ina case once. I was arrested and made it clear I will wait for my attorney to get there to answer any questions.

A few hours later they put me in a room with a cop. He proceded to say this. "I know you are playing the game you want to play it but I have to tell you that everybody I go after I put in jail." His refference of my rights as a game disturbed me.

He knew I had requested my attorney but he was there to threaten me that if I didn't give up my rights he would do whatever it took to put me in jail. Just using statistics it is impossible taht 100% of suspects he went after were guilty. He didn't care about my rights and I would bet many cops are the same.

I find it hard to beleive that somebody that had been interrogated for 8 or 10 hours never asked for an attorney.
Click to expand...

Well he never did ask for an attorney, or his attorney would have argued that point.

This was a murder case, all murder case interviews in ALL states in the US require video recording of the interview room.
If the defendant had asked for an attorney during this time, it would have been known.
:roll:
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

This happens all the time; officers are TRAINED to get confessions while skirting the edge of the law as much as possible.

I had a case once where the officer basically told my client "You can either confess to me and I'll let you go or I can arrest you now and take you out of here in handcuffs in front of all your friends." When she said she wanted to see a lawyer, he said "OK, but this is your last chance. If you want a lawyer, I'll arrest you first and then you can talk to him."

I got her confession suppressed and won after the DA appealed it, too. (Here's a link to the Superior Court's opinion: Pennsylvania Superior Court Cases - Superior Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Superior Court - unoffical reports - þÿ)

The point though is that many many times suspects are coerced to confess in exchange for a promise to be treated nicer or not have as many charges filed, and they do so. But I wonder how consensual that really is. They don't know whether the cop is telling the truth about what charges could have been filed, for instance.

So anything that waters down these rights is bad, in my opinion. If someone is not talking or cooperating, it's pretty clear they don't want to talk. I don't know why they need to specifically say "By the way, in case you can't tell, I am exercising my right to not talk by not talking."
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

mike2810 said:
Just asking, were you guilty?
Click to expand...

Silly Mike. People are rarely self admittedly guilty of anything.

Thats my beef with society as a whole, people feel that they have a right to "get off" with being charged for a crime that they willingly committed.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Groucho said:
This happens all the time; officers are TRAINED to get confessions while skirting the edge of the law as much as possible.
Click to expand...
Defense attorneys do the same thing. We have to learn to play in similar manners, however, we need to make sure we do it without violating rights or other rules. I think we do a good job of that as a whole for the most part. Personally, my department doesn't put so much stress on officers to charge someone for a crime that we have any desire to do ANYTHING to find the responsible party.
So anything that waters down these rights is bad, in my opinion. If someone is not talking or cooperating, it's pretty clear they don't want to talk. I don't know why they need to specifically say "By the way, in case you can't tell, I am exercising my right to not talk by not talking."
Click to expand...
Nothing is being wattered down, if anything it is clairifying an issue so that we know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Speaking to inform somone that you do not wish to be a witness against yourself is NOT being a witness against yourself.

The Miranda warnings "right to remain silent" is a bit retarded, those words shouldn't be used to be honest because they do not convey the 5th amendment very well. You do NOT have the right to remain silent really, as has been upheld by the court when it comes to being asked basic booking questions.

So yeah, stay "silent" all you want, but your ass is never getting out of jail on pre-trial release until you SPEAK and answer the freaking booking questions so you can be processed.

I always get a chuckle out of people who think they understand the legal system when they are sitting in a holding cell for hours until they decide they want to start cooperating with the arrest process.

Those who are dissenting with this decision have a weak position that is not based on the Constitution itself, but is based upon a phrase used in the miranda decision that should not have made it there to start with.

Personally I find miranda to be a ****ty decision, not because I want to violate rights, because I don't. Its because I don't understand how the supreme court could interpret somewhere in the constitution that it be a requirement for officers to give a civics lesson to those we intent to interview for purposes of a criminal investigation.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Caine said:
Silly Mike. People are rarely self admittedly guilty of anything.

Thats my beef with society as a whole, people feel that they have a right to "get off" with being charged for a crime that they willingly committed.
Click to expand...

Not silly, sarcstic yes. I was just asking 66 because of the negative tone towards cops. I personally am tired of people claiming "its not my fault", when in fact all or a good part is. (ex: person suing google maps because they got hit by a car while following the gps direction.). I also don't like when people get off on a technicality.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

mike2810 said:
Not silly, sarcstic yes. I was just asking 66 because of the negative tone towards cops. I personally am tired of people claiming "its not my fault", when in fact all or a good part is. (ex: person suing google maps because they got hit by a car while following the gps direction.). I also don't like when people get off on a technicality.
Click to expand...

Technicalities are Law loopholes are such BS.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Groucho said:
Yeah, that damned Constitution!
Click to expand...

What does the constitution have to do with a box not being filled in with ink when the information line next to the box IS filled in with ink on a form?

Like I said, technicalities.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Caine said:
What does the constitution have to do with a box not being filled in with ink when the information line next to the box IS filled in with ink on a form?

Like I said, technicalities.
Click to expand...

No idea what you're talking about.
 
Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

Groucho said:
No idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

When scheming defense attorney's get information suppressed or cases dismissed because one of the 6 times a bit of information was put on a one of several forms, a box next to the information on the form was not filled with ink, and thus, the information contained therein was suppressed and caused the case to be thrown out. Something like that.

Tell me Mr. Defense attorney, you've never used BS technicalities like that to "get your client off" with something that they knowingly and willingly did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom