• 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
Guy Incognito said:
The only reason to say this is because of a poor understanding of the right at issue. Miranda is not some pinnacle of civil liberties, and all these sanctimonious reactions are just examples of unthinking totemism. The exceptions to Miranda exist for a reason, and it is because there can be circumstances where Miranda warnings are unnecessary without infringing on civil liberties. Miranda is vastly misunderstood, and falsely lionized, as many of the reactions in this thread amply demonstration.
Click to expand...

There's still no reason not to, particularly in this case, and if its sleazed some way to get anyone off, then perhaps the responses are warranted.
 
Fisher said:
They want to be able to question him about any other explosives out there (public safety exception) and a terrorist does not have the same rights as a normal criminal so Miranda really is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

According to what? The Constitution doesn't make exceptions for terrorism.

Especially terrorists on American soil.

Especially terrorists with American citizenship on American soil.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

It also depends on whether or not the person being questioned can be reasonably expected to believe they are free to go at any time.
 
I think several people have pointed out not reading this guy his rights doesn't endanger any evidence gathered prior to his arrest. Eye Witness accounts of the fire fight are still acceptable. Video captures showing him at the scene of the bombing still acceptable. Forensic evidence gathered of the bomb and anyplace searched prior to the arrest still good to go. All ballistic evidence still acceptable.

Now to hear some 'conservatives' in another thread there is a 12 man sleeper cell out there that is pretty dumb not still not all are accounted for. In the other thread they are claiming Obama's crew shouldn't be downplaying the clear and present danger. They are sure more attacks are in the pipeline. That would seem to be an exception to quick 'readin' his rights'.

Many 'conservatives' feel this is Jihad and not demented, disenfranchised, disturbed youths like the Columbine whack jobs so I'd think they would be all fuzzy for treating this guy like a terrorist rather than a murderous punk.

Many 'conservatives' were highly critical of how quickly the underwear bomber was Miranda'd as many thought there was more than one bomber out there.

I wouldn't be comfortable with anything this guy says before being read his rights later being used against him in a court of law (I don't think they NEED any more than what they have to try him), but I can see the FBI at least trying to run down all the talk show rumors of a sleeper cell.
 
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...

Whatever the rationalization is, Dzokhar Tsarnaev is a United States citizen. I don't necessarily care about foreign combatants caught in other countries, but when it's an American citizen arrested in the United States...
 
ThePlayDrive said:
"hurts no one" is uncertain. if reading them would influence him to not give potentially live saving info, then saying them did hurt someone.
Click to expand...

Not informing someone of their rights because it might influence them to exercise them is not the right thing to do. The guy should know his options. I know people get their panties in a bunch when a suspected terrorist is involved but that is not the way it is supposed to be. The rights are there for a reason, a good reason.
 
Kreton said:
Not informing someone of their rights because it might influence them to exercise them is not the right thing to do. The guy should know his options. I know people get their panties in a bunch when a suspected terrorist is involved but that is not the way it is supposed to be. The rights are there for a reason, a good reason.
Click to expand...

His rights themselves are still completely intact. He still has the right to remain silent if he wished to do so. It isn't like this kid is stupid and doesn't know his rights. Miranda is a technicality. There is technically no right written into the Constitution that a suspect must be informed of his/her rights. Miranda is a safeguard to prevent people from being coerced by LE into admitting to something because they don't know they can remain silent or have a lawyer. And the safeguard is that anything they do say cannot be used against them (or others they may indicate prior to the Miranda warning, "fruit of the poisonous tree").
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
According to what? The Constitution doesn't make exceptions for terrorism.

Especially terrorists on American soil.

Especially terrorists with American citizenship on American soil.
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson isn't the one who will be hearing the case or the appeals, so according to the law as it exists now.
 
There are many inspiring facets to Boston, and a number of uninspiring ones. But the worst one is this notion of intentionally questioning a US citizen apprehended on US soil without reading him his rights. Many people do really bad things, things that are far worse than the Boston Bombings. Yet we have no problem reading them their rights and following the law. Why should we treat this individual any differently?

We have zero evidence to connect him to anyone else, we have zero reason to suspect that he or anyone he may be involved with represents an imminent threat.

Not reading him his rights doesn't take them away. It effectively gives him amnesty. Any evidence uncovered by the questioning, none of it is admissible in court. You may think that his case will be open and shut, but there's a lot we don't know. It's unlikely that this guy will walk, but not reading him his rights makes it more likely.
 
Mithros said:
There are many inspiring facets to Boston, and a number of uninspiring ones. But the worst one is this notion of intentionally questioning a US citizen apprehended on US soil without reading him his rights. Many people do really bad things, things that are far worse than the Boston Bombings. Yet we have no problem reading them their rights and following the law. Why should we treat this individual any differently?

We have zero evidence to connect him to anyone else, we have zero reason to suspect that he or anyone he may be involved with represents an imminent threat.

Not reading him his rights doesn't take them away. It effectively gives him amnesty. Any evidence uncovered by the questioning, none of it is admissible in court. You may think that his case will be open and shut, but there's a lot we don't know. It's unlikely that this guy will walk, but not reading him his rights makes it more likely.
Click to expand...

It does not give him amnesty at all. All it does is prevent prosecutors from using anything he might say prior to his rights being read to him from being used against him in court. That's it.
 
Kreton said:
Not informing someone of their rights because it might influence them to exercise them is not the right thing to do. The guy should know his options. I know people get their panties in a bunch when a suspected terrorist is involved but that is not the way it is supposed to be. The rights are there for a reason, a good reason.
Click to expand...
Like I said before, I'm ambivalent about whether or not this "safety exception" is a good idea. However, for you to say that reading him his rights will "hurt no one" as if that is a certainty is, at best, presumptuous and, at worst, inaccurate.
 
How so? Reading him his rights is not his rights. They dont change.
ThePlayDrive said:
Like I said before, I'm ambivalent about whether or not this "safety exception" is a good idea. However, for you to say that reading him his rights will "hurt no one" as if that is a certainty is, at best, presumptuous and, at worst, inaccurate.
Click to expand...
 
roguenuke said:
It does not give him amnesty at all. All it does is prevent prosecutors from using anything he might say prior to his rights being read to him from being used against him in court. That's it.
Click to expand...

It removes all consequences from anything he may testify to, and possibly for any discoveries that any such questions may lead to. Perhaps amnesty is the wrong word, it's more of a unlimited immunity.

I have no problem with the public saftey exception when its warrented, but unless there's something that we don't know, it's not warrented here. What makes this 19 year old different from every other criminal or murderer in the US? Is suspicion that he may have been sympathetic to Islamic Extremists reason to treat him differently?
 
It is my impression that once the "public safety threat" has passed... which had before he even woke up, IMO, but I digress... they can then read him his Miranda Warning at any time they so choose. Then, anything afterward would be admissible.
 
mak2 said:
How so? Reading him his rights is not his rights. They dont change.
Click to expand...
His rights don't change, but his awareness of his rights and his willingness to invoke them might change. That's the entire premise of the public safety exception.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Like I said before, I'm ambivalent about whether or not this "safety exception" is a good idea. However, for you to say that reading him his rights will "hurt no one" as if that is a certainty is, at best, presumptuous and, at worst, inaccurate.
Click to expand...

How could reading a man his rights harm someone? I cannot fathom how that could possibly be true.
 
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...

I think they should have read him his rights or if the government didn't want to do that, shipped him off to Gitmo and declare him an enemy combatant.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
His rights don't change, but his awareness of his rights and his willingness to invoke them might change. That's the entire premise of the public safety exception.
Click to expand...

Are you really ok with police and feds violating a person's rights if a person doesn't know they have them? Or using their discretion to decide when a person should know about them?
 
MaggieD said:
Where does your link show that SCOTUS ruled on not Mirandizing people? You know, what the thread's about.
Click to expand...

Schutzengel said:
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
Click to expand...

Scotus ruled that you can hold off on reading the miranda rights in the even that there is a danger to the public. Meaning that they'd be able to ask him quickly "are there any explosives on you, have you planted anything any where" etc... but after that, they do have to read it to him.

If they still haven't read him his rights then I think they are going about this in an incredibly stupid way.
 
His rights will not be violated. I must be missing something. if the judge allows evidnce gathterd from him before he was read his rights, in court, then yes his rights would be violated. IF the judge does not allow that evidence in court then he rights were preserved.

The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.[Note 1] Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
Kreton said:
Are you really ok with police and feds violating a person's rights if a person doesn't know they have them? Or using their discretion to decide when a person should know about them?
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
 
Mithros said:
It removes all consequences from anything he may testify to, and possibly for any discoveries that any such questions may lead to. Perhaps amnesty is the wrong word, it's more of a unlimited immunity.

I have no problem with the public saftey exception when its warrented, but unless there's something that we don't know, it's not warrented here. What makes this 19 year old different from every other criminal or murderer in the US? Is suspicion that he may have been sympathetic to Islamic Extremists reason to treat him differently?
Click to expand...

It's actually a very limited immunity. It only removes consequences between two specific time periods, from the time they began questioning/interrogating him pertaining to the bombings until the point where they do read him his rights and ensure he understands them.

The feds feel it is warranted in order to ask him about more bombs or other people involved (although questions toward this end should be very limited prior to reading him his rights). It won't have that big of an effect at all on what can be used against him unless he completely confesses and starts naming names before his rights are read to him and then clams up after.
 
Fisher said:
They want to be able to question him about any other explosives out there (public safety exception) and a terrorist does not have the same rights as a normal criminal so Miranda really is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
All humans have the same rights, terrorist or not.
 
roguenuke said:
It's actually a very limited immunity. It only removes consequences between two specific time periods, from the time they began questioning/interrogating him pertaining to the bombings until the point where they do read him his rights and ensure he understands them.

The feds feel it is warranted in order to ask him about more bombs or other people involved (although questions toward this end should be very limited prior to reading him his rights). It won't have that big of an effect at all on what can be used against him unless he completely confesses and starts naming names before his rights are read to him and then clams up after.
Click to expand...
Exactly! It's limited to whatever he tells authorities between now and when they read him his rights that they didn't know before. And that's kind of unlimited.

Say he gives them a location that they didn't know about before, they can't use that or anything they find there in a trial. If we had reason to believe that he could bring down a bigger fish or group, then sure. But we have absolutely no evidence to support that.

I don't see people acting in the interest of the public good. I see politicians making political decisions. The only reason he's not being read his rights is because someones afraid to face an add accusing them of "sympathizing" with terrorists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom