• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just for the record...I'd like to say that I would want to see nothing less than full extent of justice carried out against this individual...

But not providing a U.S. citizen with his right to due process is not only handing him a get of jail card, but these are rather dangerous waters that we shouldn't be treading. Yes he did commit a dangerous crime and posed an immense danger to society, but that doesn't meant that we should just chuck the Constitution and the entire basis of our judicial system out the window because of it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Sure it's a pendulum -- one that keeps swinging further and further towards the statist end of things with every stroke. Decade after decade for the last 50 years, the government gets bigger and more powerful, and our civil rights are steadily eclipsed. There is no backward swing, not in the sum total of things.
Click to expand...

Which isn't true. There have been several court cases that have shown the pendulum goes back and forth. Tenn. v Garner got ruled on in 1985, (shooting a fleeing suspect), the DeLorean entrapment case 1984, along with Mathews v US 1988 and Jacobsen v US 1992 (big ones pertaining to entrapment), last year a couple of cases pertaining to plea bargains and attorneys was ruled on that made plea bargains more open and upfront, and many other cases have narrowed down what LE can and cannot use under search and seizure and warrants (technology can be both a blessing and a curse to LE). The last decade we have been going more toward "the greater good", but there was plenty done before that was worse than now. Just because you aren't aware of every ruling that comes down that changes how something was working, whether for personal freedom/rights or against it, doesn't mean that every ruling and/or law is removing personal rights.
 
Very very bad idea. He is a citizen he has the right to be read his rights.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Very very bad idea. He is a citizen he has the right to be read his rights.
Click to expand...

No. No person, citizen or otherwise, has a "right" to be read Miranda rights. Rather, if you aren't read your Miranda rights then it is possible that some of the information obtained in an interrogation while in custody may not be admissible against you in cost. Nobody has a right to be read there rights, and if the cops have other evidence against you besides what was obtained on interogation, then it is perfectly possible to convict you without Miranda warnings at all.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Very very bad idea. He is a citizen he has the right to be read his rights.
Click to expand...

One has to understand one's Miranda rights for them to be administered (one must be conscious).

If he has not been interrogated, it makes no difference, now does it?

If professional police officers and the FBI have not yet administered Miranda, then it was for a reason.

They would not blow such a visible case out of sheer stupidity.
 
SMTA said:
One has to understand one's Miranda rights for them to be administered (one must be conscious).

If he has not been interrogated, it makes no difference, now does it?

If professional police officers and the FBI have not yet administered Miranda, then it was for a reason.

They would not blow such a visible case out of sheer stupidity.
Click to expand...
He would have to be conscious to be questioned, too.

Just because they have a reason doesn't automatically qualify it as a good reason. As Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

The part that I don't get is why they felt the need to announce to the media immediately that they weren't going to read him his Miranda Warning. It wasn't something that needed to be publicly announced, and all it served to do was create hassle for them.
 
radcen said:
He would have to be conscious to be questioned, too.

Just because they have a reason doesn't automatically qualify it as a good reason. As Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

The part that I don't get is why they felt the need to announce to the media immediately that they weren't going to read him his Miranda Warning. It wasn't something that needed to be publicly announced, and all it served to do was create hassle for them.
Click to expand...

Yea, I also thought that it was stupid to say that publicly.

All it has done is cause confusion.
 
It should be done to anyone arrested. Suspects are under suspicion of committing a crime...they are not guilty until being convicted in a court of law.
 
From what I understand, he can't talk, so why do we have to tell him he can remain silent? Address it if or when he is able to speak.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

That sets a dangerous precedent. It takes a few seconds to say, hurts no one, and keeps the police from making assumptions about a person's intelligence and education.
 
It is not important, I dont think his confession will be needed.
 
Kreton said:
That sets a dangerous precedent. It takes a few seconds to say, hurts no one, and keeps the police from making assumptions about a person's intelligence and education.
Click to expand...

I just learned this morning that when law enforcement decides to not Mirandize someone for public safety, nothing they say can be used against them. In my mind, that takes away any potential abuse. It's a good trade-off.
 
ITs BS completely. The guy should be read his rights upon arrest. Period.
 
Exactly, people are confused because some are calling for a military tribunal instead of trial in a civilian court. Not reading him his Miranda is to his advantage. It will not take away his rights against self incrimination in court. I really dont see why everyone is so worried about this.
MaggieD said:
I just learned this morning that when law enforcement decides to not Mirandize someone for public safety, nothing they say can be used against them. In my mind, that takes away any potential abuse. It's a good trade-off.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
I just learned this morning that when law enforcement decides to not Mirandize someone for public safety, nothing they say can be used against them. In my mind, that takes away any potential abuse. It's a good trade-off.
Click to expand...

I dont see how it is a good trade off. Does anyone know how reading a man his rights has any bearing on public safety?
 
haymarket said:
ITs BS completely. The guy should be read his rights upon arrest. Period.
Click to expand...

Despite what is shown on TV, it is not common practice to read people their rights upon arrest. Rights are read prior to interrogation about a crime, not usually upon arrest.
 
Kreton said:
I dont see how it is a good trade off. Does anyone know how reading a man his rights has any bearing on public safety?
Click to expand...

Because some people automatically freeze up as soon as they are read their rights, even when it is questions that are not important about the case, while LE has found that some people will answer questions freely before being read their rights because of the fact that people have learned that if they don't read you your rights, stuff you say cannot be held against you (which is mainly true only if the police have begun questioning you, if you say stuff on your own and they haven't asked you anything about the crime, spontaneous statements can still be held against you most of the time).
 
Kreton said:
I dont see how it is a good trade off. Does anyone know how reading a man his rights has any bearing on public safety?
Click to expand...

If you can't figure that out, Kreton, most of us are very relieved you're not in law enforcement.
 
Here is some more on their logic.

This analysis answers a lot of questions, but shows that they are playing a very dangerous game here:

Constitution Check: Are there limits on questioning a bombing suspect?

Some three decades ago, the Supreme Court for the first time gave police and federal agents the authority to avoid giving criminal suspects Miranda warnings about their constitutional rights, when the public safety justified that suspension. That authority, given in the 1984 decision of New York v. Quarles, has since been expanded by lower courts so that, even if a suspect has claimed the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, the questioning can go on if the public safety threat remains.
Click to expand...

There is some risk that, if the public safety exception and the 2010 Justice Department memo are pressed too far by officers in the field, they could put in jeopardy their chances of using at later trials the evidence of crime that has been gathered. The calculation thus has to be made whether to run that risk. That involves a balancing of the needs of trial prosecutors with the needs of finding out about potential future threats.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
My impression after watching the Sunday AM talk shows was the Police dont think they will need his confession anyway.
Click to expand...

Holy ****!

Those have to be famous judicial words used more than once just prior to losing a big case!

They had better be very, very careful......
 
roguenuke said:
Despite what is shown on TV, it is not common practice to read people their rights upon arrest. Rights are read prior to interrogation about a crime, not usually upon arrest.
Click to expand...

Both. Not everyone questioned about a crime is Mirandized. If one is a suspect, they must be Mirandized, but if just questioning for background information they don't do that. And. Anything someone like that comes out with is able to be used against them.
 
Kreton said:
That sets a dangerous precedent. It takes a few seconds to say, hurts no one, and keeps the police from making assumptions about a person's intelligence and education.
Click to expand...
"hurts no one" is uncertain. if reading them would influence him to not give potentially live saving info, then saying them did hurt someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom