Supreme Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent.

#3
#3
droski said:
can't you just not talk. i'm failing to see the issue.
Click to expand...

I guess when they say they want to remain silent then the questions will stop.

This moron answered yes with his head nod after 3 hours of his silent attempt. Seems like all he had to do was just lawyer up, or better yet, not murder someone.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#5
#5
The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
Click to expand...
give me a break. He messed up and couldn't keep his mouth shut but now he wants a do-over?

"I want a lawyer" works pretty good too
 
#6
#6
Some of my favorites......

White Devil!

White Devil Muther F#$$%r!

White meat!

Cracker!

Racist piece of bacon!

White brutality!

The good old F#$k you!
 
#7
#7
I think having to actually state you are done volunteering information and/or want a lawyer present is a pretty damn low bar. I've got no issue with this decision.
 
#8
#8
There has always been a tension within Miranda and related decisions as to 1) how much do you expect a criminal defendant to understand of his rights and responsibilities in exercising those rights; 2) in what ways can the police manipulate a person into unintentionally giving up those rights; and 3) if a person seems like he's giving up those rights and understands it, there isn't a need to protect him from himself.

Its in the cases where the Court tries to make hard and fast rules that it gets tricky.

There is a certain class of cases and defendants where nuance become the order of the day, leading to these types of appeals. Heck, this is one. Guy is silent but communicative for 3 hours and then gets asked if he prays for forgiveness for killing someone and says "yes."

These kinds of cases make for tricky and tougher decisions than you might imagine.
 
#9
#9
Isn't this based in the right to not self incriminate? I'm unaware of a right not to be questioned. (I'm sure this is a gross over simplification).
 
#10
#10
volinbham said:
Isn't this based in the right to not self incriminate? I'm unaware of a right not to be questioned. (I'm sure this is a gross over simplification).
Click to expand...


No, that's pretty much right. Its the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. It has taken on a more generic due process feel to it over time, IMO.

I really don't deal with it a lot, except only very tangentially in the context of some sort of false arrest/due process/malicious prosecution thing. Very uncommon.
 
#11
#11
emainvol said:
The Associated Press: Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The Miranda ruling is one of the most idiot rulings ever and should be overturned.

It places an undue burden on police and prosecuters.

If a citizen is charged with knowing the law, ignorance of the law is no defense, then why should society at large be punished because a criminal doesn't know his own rights??

And to extend idiocy to previously unknown bounds, some want to extend citizens rights to illegal aliens and foreign jihadists who have never even set foot one American soil, much less have ever been a citizen.
 
#12
#12
I don't understand what Sotomayor was trying to argue. They still have the right to not say anything...
 
#14
#14
tvolsfan said:
I don't understand what Sotomayor was trying to argue. They still have the right to not say anything...
Click to expand...


The concern is that people who have been arrested and are being questioned will not understand the distinction. On top of that, there is something to be said for the notion that the right exists and that the government has to overcome it, not that it exists on some conditional level where you have to affirmatively invoke it.

The universe of cases where that particular rule will result in a different outcome than is currently the situation will not be that large. But its a step away from the notion that there are some boundaries that exist and its up to the government to overcome it, rhather than up to the suspect to put the boundary up on his own.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
The concern is that people who have been arrested and are being questioned will not understand the distinction. On top of that, there is something to be said for the notion that the right exists and that the government has to overcome it, not that it exists on some conditional level where you have to affirmatively invoke it.

The universe of cases where that particular rule will result in a different outcome than is currently the situation will not be that large. But its a step away from the notion that there are some boundaries that exist and its up to the government to overcome it, rhather than up to the suspect to put the boundary up on his own.
Click to expand...

The right is to not say anything. I guess I don't see why the government can't keep asking questions though.

If the law were "you have the right for the government to be silent" then it would be clearer.
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
The right is to not say anything. I guess I don't see why the government can't keep asking questions though.

If the law were "you have the right for the government to be silent" then it would be clearer.
Click to expand...

Or you could just go one step further and say if the perp is one of a favored minority then they shouldn't be held accountable at all because their ancestors were oppressed and they're just getting even.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top