• 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!

Secret service questions teen without parents being present

Aunt Spiker said:
Why not?

What if this was a child of one of the 9/11 attackers? In retrospect - if one of them had a child, their child said something that hinted at a possible issue happenening, and we did nothing - then that would have been wrapped up in the 9/11 investigatoin, report - and no one would be giving a **** about whether or not the kid's parents were 'there' - instead, people would be wondering why no one looked into anything.

I'm sorry - but parents aren't always the best people ot have present because parents aren't perfect.

But having an investigator alone with a child isn't wise, either. So I do feel that if a parent isn't preferred to be present because he/she might be a concern then a human-services or other some such individual should be present to ensure that the child's rights aren't being trampled in the process.
Click to expand...

If the child had a 9/11 terrorist as a parent then the interests of the child should still be represented by a guardian ad litem.

Usually, the parents are the guardians of a child but when a parent is unavailable or unfeasible a court can appoint a guardian ad litem to the child. All people, regardless of whether they are a terrorist or not, has a right to due process in this country. This includes children too. And because the youth of a child may mean they do not understand all their rights and liberties, they require a guardian to act in their best interests.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What - terrorists and people who might want to kill the president CAN'T possibly have kids or something?

Of course they can.

Meanwhile - a crazed mother murdered here 6 year old son and dumped his body on the roadside in Maine to be found by passerby's.
Click to expand...

And none of these things have anything to do with the issues concerning the incident that is the topic of this thread.
 
samsmart said:
If the child had a 9/11 terrorist as a parent then the interests of the child should still be represented by a guardian ad litem.

Usually, the parents are the guardians of a child but when a parent is unavailable or unfeasible a court can appoint a guardian ad litem to the child. All people, regardless of whether they are a terrorist or not, has a right to due process in this country. This includes children too. And because the youth of a child may mean they do not understand all their rights and liberties, they require a guardian to act in their best interests.
Click to expand...

Which has what to do with just asking the kid some questions? It isn't like the kid has been charged with anything, nor is anything he said being used against him or someone else in charging them with a crime. If either of these things happen, then I expect that the kid's "interview" answers should not be permissible as evidence, since he didn't have a guardian/parent with him during the questioning, just as they would for a suspect who was being interviewed who didn't have his rights read to him.
 
shades said:
you dont question my child without me being there.
period

and its interesting that both posts so far mention a political affiliation having something to do with it
Click to expand...

I don't think it works that way, at least it didn't when Ken Starr had a child taken out of class to be questioned. I suppose there should be some guideline, like a counselor present as a witnesses.
 
samsmart said:
And none of these things have anything to do with the issues concerning the incident that is the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

This issue I'm discussing is at what point - and based on what info - do they determine whether a parent should be / should not be present when a child is being questioned.

Reported cases of child abuse with suspicion of the parent?
Veiled threats which suggest that *maybe* the parents is planning harm?
Any other situation in which the presense of a parent might inhibit and supress the child's telling of events or the situation?

I think this situation that we are discussing qualifies as a case in which the parent should not be present because their presence might inhibit the child from telling the truth or giving reliable information - especially when things such as facebook and the internet is concerned.

But - I think, regarding this situation, they should have evaluated the situation more carefully and - in all such situations in which the parent/guardian is determined to not need to be present then there should be (needs to be) a set of regulations, rules and steps to follow. . . which they did none of.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Why not?

I'm sorry - but parents aren't always the best people ot have present because parents aren't perfect.

But having an investigator alone with a child isn't wise, either. So I do feel that if a parent isn't preferred to be present because he/she might be a concern then a human-services or other some such individual should be present to ensure that the child's rights aren't being trampled in the process.
Click to expand...

I'll almost go along with this one, but in reality who is to judge, on a moments notice that the parent isnt fit....

There is absolutely no way the friggin secret service should question a child without the parent being there, under any circumstances before the parent is somehow deemed unfit unequivicably.

If they spoke to my child without me being there they better be gone when I did get there, otherwise, and I'm sure they would have no problem with doing, they would be taking me away in cuffs with bruises and blood and broken bones to go around.
and the press would see all of this after I got my say in public.
We would be national news for a week.

you dont mess with peoples children
 
When I was 17 I got caught in the courtyard of my friend's apartment drinking "bitch beer" one night during spring break. Being 2 in at that point I wasn't drunk or even tipsy, but I was certainly breaking the law. The cops collected our IDS, read us our rights, and proceeded to question us regarding where we got the alcohol and what we had been doing before they arrived.

Luckily, because we weren't doing anything else wrong, they just made us pour out the rest of our alcohol and told us to find sober rides home.

In any case, we were questioned without parents or gaurdians present. The cops didn't threaten us, weren't jerks, didn't use force against us. They didn't try to intimidate us or put us in cuffs...but they never called a parent or requested one, either. Is that more or less "terrible" than what happened to this kid?

None of the articles I've read mention the tone of the agents, what kind of questions were asked, or whether or not the kid was ever detained in suspicion of a crime. Of course the articles say they "interrogated" the child, but that is based off of the mother's assertions, who is angry and probably a little hyperbolic right now. If they had "Interviewed" the child, would it change things? If a transcript was released would it change things?
 
tessaesque said:
When I was 17 I got caught in the courtyard of my friend's apartment drinking "bitch beer" one night during spring break. Being 2 in at that point I wasn't drunk or even tipsy, but I was certainly breaking the law. The cops collected our IDS, read us our rights, and proceeded to question us regarding where we got the alcohol and what we had been doing before they arrived.

Luckily, because we weren't doing anything else wrong, they just made us pour out the rest of our alcohol and told us to find sober rides home.

In any case, we were questioned without parents or gaurdians present. The cops didn't threaten us, weren't jerks, didn't use force against us. They didn't try to intimidate us or put us in cuffs...but they never called a parent or requested one, either. Is that more or less "terrible" than what happened to this kid?

None of the articles I've read mention the tone of the agents, what kind of questions were asked, or whether or not the kid was ever detained in suspicion of a crime. Of course the articles say they "interrogated" the child, but that is based off of the mother's assertions, who is angry and probably a little hyperbolic right now. If they had "Interviewed" the child, would it change things? If a transcript was released would it change things?
Click to expand...

totally different scenario,

if this kid had broken any laws, and could have been charged in any way that would be totally different,
the LAW is what I am trying to defend here, that and common decency..

I'm in no way saying this kid shouldnt have been questioned for his actions, nor am I saying if there was an immediate perceived threat that he should have been placed under surveilence even..

but at 13, you deserve, we expect, that the parents would be brought in immediately and before any type of interrogation..
and if the secret service takes you into a room alone, thats an interrogation any way you slice it.
 
Agreed - there should be extensive procedures that one much go throug before they're permitted to question an uneraged teen or child without the parent being present.

It's a grey-area that just hasn't had much legal focus or legislative action.

If we look at it logically in other areas which have received extensive focus and decision-making:

An underaged individual is classifed as an infant in the eyes of the law - and being so is by default determined unable to enter into a legal binding contract and any and all contracts are to be null and void in the event of an issue - regardless of the passage of time.

Ergo - what applies to business should apply to legal procedures, including interrogations. . . if one cannot legally buy a car due to age then one should not legally provide testimony unless proper consent has been sought and granted per examination and judgment. In this regard we can use obtaining a search warrant as an example: must have evidence that the individual is connected to said event with sufficient pre-existing evidence to net such judicial and legal action.

In this case *what if* they had the wrong kid? Could have happened VERY easily - it's online *shrug*

If a parent is considered a 'toxic asset' in an investigation they should be required to prove that, first - and then pursue the matter.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
This issue I'm discussing is at what point - and based on what info - do they determine whether a parent should be / should not be present when a child is being questioned.

Reported cases of child abuse with suspicion of the parent?
Veiled threats which suggest that *maybe* the parents is planning harm?
Any other situation in which the presense of a parent might inhibit and supress the child's telling of events or the situation?

I think this situation that we are discussing qualifies as a case in which the parent should not be present because their presence might inhibit the child from telling the truth or giving reliable information - especially when things such as facebook and the internet is concerned.

But - I think, regarding this situation, they should have evaluated the situation more carefully and - in all such situations in which the parent/guardian is determined to not need to be present then there should be (needs to be) a set of regulations, rules and steps to follow. . . which they did none of.
Click to expand...

I understand your point that there may be times when the parent shouldn't be called in when law enforcement interviews a minor.

However, that still doesn't mean a child can't have a guardian ad litem present to represent their interests. In cases in which there is a conflict of interest between the parent and a child, then a guardian can be appointed to represent the interests of the child.

So my point is that the intersts of a child must be protected, whether it be by a parent (which is most cases) or a guardian ad litem (when a parent cannot adequately represent the interests of a child).
 
samsmart said:
I understand your point that there may be times when the parent shouldn't be called in when law enforcement interviews a minor.

However, that still doesn't mean a child can't have a guardian ad litem present to represent their interests. In cases in which there is a conflict of interest between the parent and a child, then a guardian can be appointed to represent the interests of the child.

So my point is that the intersts of a child must be protected, whether it be by a parent (which is most cases) or a guardian ad litem (when a parent cannot adequately represent the interests of a child).
Click to expand...

I agree completely - they need to determine a set of procedures to follow and require 100% faith to those, which should include probably cause or solid reason for the concern and a liason, etc.

Absolutely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom