• 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!

No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

  • It's fine, and warranted

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • It's BS, and shouldn't ever be done

    Votes: 28 66.7%
  • I'm somewhere in the middle on this one

    Votes: 6 14.3%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 2 4.8%

  • Total voters
    42

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

Feds Make Miranda Rights Exception for Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - ABC News

I'm feeling pretty confident that we got the right guy. But, as someone who believes that the integrity of the overall system is more important than any single incident and/or suspect, I have issues with not reading the guy his Miranda warning. One, as he is in custody, I'm failing to see any scenario where he continues to pose any threat to public safety that would trigger this, and two, it smacks of yet another end-run around the Constitution using fear and emotion as the rationalization.
 
The only way that the "Public Safety" rule could be imposed is if they truly believe that there are more pending attacks that can be stopped.
 
So does this exception mean he doesn't have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney or just that he doesn't have to be told about the right? If it is the latter I am not as concerned as I am sure most people nowadays are aware of it. But it still doesn't look like it would meet that exception. What threat to national security did he pose once they had his wounded ass in custody?
 
The only way that the "Public Safety" rule could be imposed is if they truly believe that there are more pending attacks that can be stopped.

And seeing as how this is what the Police tweeted upon his capture:

CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won. Suspect in custody.

I'm guessing they didn't think that was the case.
 
No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

Feds Make Miranda Rights Exception for Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - ABC News

I'm feeling pretty confident that we got the right guy. But, as someone who believes that the integrity of the overall system is more important than any single incident and/or suspect, I have issues with not reading the guy his Miranda warning. One, as he is in custody, I'm failing to see any scenario where he continues to pose any threat to public safety that would trigger this, and two, it smacks of yet another end-run around the Constitution using fear and emotion as the rationalization.

I don't like it simply because a shyster lawyer will be able to get him off!!

I want every i dotted,every t crossed because if he's guilty I want

him to pay the fullest penalty available!!:twocents:
 
I don't like it simply because a shyster lawyer will be able to get him off!!

1. That's a slur.

2. No lawyer is going to get anybody off. The public safety exception to Miranda is perfectly legal.
 
read the scumbag **** his rights.
 
Right, so why didnt they Mirandize him... he IS a US citizen... unless someone told them not to so that he could walk on a technicality
 
1. That's a slur.

2. No lawyer is going to get anybody off. The public safety exception to Miranda is perfectly legal.

No slur intended. I'm sure there are honest lawyers out there.

As to #2 why not read the idiot his rights,then we don't have to

worry about him getting off on a technicallity?
 
ONLY, if they believe there to be an imminent threat to public safety in general, I.E. they think there are others ready to commit acts of terror that can still be stopped.
 
Aren't most individuals familiar enough with the Miranda rights already?
 
I'm ambivalent.

On the one hand, I don't think he should be read his rights because should he choose to stay silent after having them read to him, he might not offer information about other explosives or attacks or accomplices that could improve public safety (if such explosives, attacks or accomplices even exist).

On the other hand, I want our system to maintain its integrity at all times even when the "suspects" are clearly guilty. Given that the FBI will probably ask him questions that aren't necessary for public safety, I find it troubling that we would compromise that integrity of our system simply because we can and we want to.

That said, he seems like an educated, bright guy who probably knows he can stay silent or ask for a lawyer or whatever so it probably wouldn't matter either way.

I don't know.
 
1. That's a slur.

2. No lawyer is going to get anybody off. The public safety exception to Miranda is perfectly legal.

Has it ever been ruled on by SCOTUS? If not, we have no idea whether it's "perfectly legal" or not.

And to the poster above: it means they don't have to Mirandize him and whatever he says can be used at trial against him.
 
Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to take his arrest and the tweet and show that he was arrested and detained improperly and not only use it to overturn any conviction but to also sue the arresting agency for civil rights violations.
 
No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

Feds Make Miranda Rights Exception for Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - ABC News

I'm feeling pretty confident that we got the right guy. But, as someone who believes that the integrity of the overall system is more important than any single incident and/or suspect, I have issues with not reading the guy his Miranda warning. One, as he is in custody, I'm failing to see any scenario where he continues to pose any threat to public safety that would trigger this, and two, it smacks of yet another end-run around the Constitution using fear and emotion as the rationalization.

As far as I know there is nothing in the constitution that says you have to be reminded of your constitutional rights when you get arrested.I really don't think a 10 or 20 second reminder of your rights is going to make much a difference or make people fully understand exactly what those rights means. If it did then no one would talk to the cops and there would be a lot less people in prison.

As far as I am concerned knowing and understanding your constitutional rights and knowing the intent of those amendments' authors should be a mandatory subject in school.It should be just as much important as the three R's.
 
No Miranda reading: Good or bad idea?

Feds Make Miranda Rights Exception for Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - ABC News

I'm feeling pretty confident that we got the right guy. But, as someone who believes that the integrity of the overall system is more important than any single incident and/or suspect, I have issues with not reading the guy his Miranda warning. One, as he is in custody, I'm failing to see any scenario where he continues to pose any threat to public safety that would trigger this, and two, it smacks of yet another end-run around the Constitution using fear and emotion as the rationalization.

In my opinion there should never be an exception for this. It's not like he can't be quiet if he wasn't read his rights. There is absolutely no reason, even with a "ticking bomb" (which this isn't the case) that a citizen shouldn't be read their rights.

We have more than enough evidence to put this guy away, why was this necessary?
 
Should have just read him his rights. Don't want to screw up anything in his conviction.
 
Has it ever been ruled on by SCOTUS? If not, we have no idea whether it's "perfectly legal" or not.

And to the poster above: it means they don't have to Mirandize him and whatever he says can be used at trial against him.

Miranda V Arizona... SCOTUS 5:4 Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why we read people their rights, so yes it has been before the SCOTUS.
 
As far as I know there is nothing in the constitution that says you have to be reminded of your constitutional rights when you get arrested.I really don't think a 10 or 20 second reminder of your rights is going to make much a difference or make people fully understand exactly what those rights means. If it did then no one would talk to the cops and there would be a lot less people in prison.
The Constitution, even as the supreme law of the land, isn't the "be all and end all", either.

In my opinion there should never be an exception for this. It's not like he can't be quiet if he wasn't read his rights. There is absolutely no reason, even with a "ticking bomb" (which this isn't the case) that a citizen shouldn't be read their rights.

We have more than enough evidence to put this guy away, why was this necessary?
To me it almost comes off as grandstanding by the government. Sort of a reassuring, "We'll act fast and take care of you." kind of thing.

As someone else mentioned, I want all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed. I suspect that any motion to suppress evidence over this will be denied, but I don't want that motion being brought in the first place.


Where does your link show that SCOTUS ruled on not Mirandizing people? You know, what the thread's about.
I heard on the news last night that this particular exemption has been approved by the SC, but I only heard it said once and I don't have a link to verify.
 
So does this exception mean he doesn't have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney or just that he doesn't have to be told about the right? If it is the latter I am not as concerned as I am sure most people nowadays are aware of it. But it still doesn't look like it would meet that exception. What threat to national security did he pose once they had his wounded ass in custody?

How could the authorities possibly know the answer to this unless they get him to talk? How many other bombs did they disable all around the city? It would be wrong to beleive they found them all just by luck.
 
Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to take his arrest and the tweet and show that he was arrested and detained improperly and not only use it to overturn any conviction but to also sue the arresting agency for civil rights violations.

That is completely incorrect. Not being read your miranda rights can not get you off on a crime you've already committed. It can only make things you say while in custody inadmissable. That's a common misconception. There is no out for this guy.
 
It seems to me that if you're going to violate someone's basic civil rights in order to extract information from them that you believe you must have in order to avert a crisis, you should accept that everything you obtain from them is inadmissible in court.
 
Where does your link show that SCOTUS ruled on not Mirandizing people? You know, what the thread's about.
You can read the case yourself.

New York v. Quarles - 467 U.S. 649 (1984)
New York v. Quarles - 467 U.S. 649 (1984) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center



Or you can read what the FBI says about it.

The "Public Safety" Exception to Miranda

I personally think the reasoning is wrong, in that, they can question all they want for their own or public safety they just shouldn't be able to use anything against the individual.
 
Back
Top Bottom