• 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
How could reading a man his rights harm someone? I cannot fathom how that could possibly be true.
By motivating him to invoke them and withhold potentially live saving information.
 
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

Just because someone is allowed to do something, doesnt make it right. If this man is not aware of his rights, and law enforcement using that ignorance to influence him, then it is wrong. Period. Every person, especially those wrapped up in the criminal justice system, should know their rights.
 
By motivating him to invoke them and withhold potentially live saving information.

So if declining a person knowledge of their rights may save lives then we should be doing it? Why ever let anyone know that they have any rights at all? Hell, for that matter, why give them rights?
 
Ok, all I am saying is having your rights read to you is not in itself your rights. Your rights are such things as protection from self incrimination, to an attorney and stuff like that. If those arent provided then the police cant use whatever you said in court. At the point something was used in court, that is when his rights would have been violated. Right and wrong is a whole differnet thing.
Just because someone is allowed to do something, doesnt make it right. If this man is not aware of his rights, and law enforcement using that ignorance to influence him, then it is wrong. Period. Every person, especially those wrapped up in the criminal justice system, should know their rights.
 
Ok, all I am saying is having your rights read to you is not in itself your rights. Your rights are such things as protection from self incrimination, to an attorney and stuff like that. If those arent provided then the police cant use whatever you said in court. At the point something was used in court, that is when his rights would have been violated. Right and wrong is a whole differnet thing.

This is correct. Miranda isn't a right. It's in essence a rule of evidence. You still have your 5th amendment right against self incrimination without being Mirandized. The problem though is that a lot of people simply don't know what their rights are or, understandably, become unhinged when in cuffs. The cards are completely stacked against suspects - for example the police can legally lie to you to extract information, if you lie to them you'll get hit with another charge - and Miranda is a attempt to somewhat level the field.

The public safety exception is meant to allow the police to deal with an immediate threat without having to balance their need to gather evidence with the needs of public safety. The problem is the exception is supposed to be narrow and presumably of short duration. Anything he says/writes will be admissible but I'm guessing a lawyer could argue the government went overboard with the use of exception and try to get the evidence excluded.

As a practical matter it's probably irrelevant. They probably have enough to hang him 10 times without his statements.
 
Back
Top Bottom