↑ ↓
 

Miranda Rights?

Started by Travis Retriever, May 31, 2009, 03:51:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions
May 31, 2009, 03:51:48 PM Last Edit: May 31, 2009, 05:47:59 PM by surhotchaperchlorome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsA3ni5fVAY ("No more Miranda Rights = the Continued Downfall of America" by SafeArmsReview)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWX40D42hM ("No more Miranda Rights = the Continued Downfall of America Part 2" by SafeArmsReview)

I got this response:
"THAT IS NOT TRUE!

The Supreme Court overturned Michigan v. Jackson which has nothing to do with Miranda. Basically all they did was say that just because you have a court appointed attorney that does not mean that the police can not contact you in an attempt to question you. All you have to do is cite miranda and refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer present and interrogation must stop.

Quoted from the ruling:
Jackson's marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs. Even without Jackson, few badger-ing-induced waivers, if any, would be admitted at trial because theCourt has taken substantial other, overlapping measures to exclude them. Under Miranda, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present. 384 U. S., at
474. Under Edwards, once such a defendant "has invoked his [Miranda] right," interrogation must stop. 451 U. S., at 484. And under Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 146, no subsequent interro-gation may take place until counsel is present. Id., at 153. These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. On the other side of the equation, the principal cost of applying Jackson's rule is that crimes can go unsolved and criminals unpunished when uncoerced confes-sions are excluded and when officers are deterred from even trying to obtain confessions. The Court concludes that the Jackson rule does not ";pay its way," United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907–908, n. 6, and thus the case should be overruled. Pp. 13–18.

Complete ruling here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1529.pdf

EDIT: I just wanted to add that it is possible that this will mean that the police will be able to talk intelligence challenged individuals into waiving their right to have counsel present before questioning although they already have an appointed attorney. Basically all this is going to do is allow the police to trick more dumb people, or those with no knowledge of their rights."

What do you think?
I feel like someone's lying to me about this...
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537
May 31, 2009, 05:51:25 PM #1
The bottom line is, the police can do whatever the hell they want, and anyone who doesn't understand their rights or is not willing to fight for them will get their rights trampled, and the police will just keep doing it. It doesn't matter if there's a Supreme Court ruling on it or not.
May 31, 2009, 05:57:08 PM #2 Last Edit: May 31, 2009, 06:04:16 PM by surhotchaperchlorome
I showed the videos to folks and got the quoted repsonse.

It was this part that concerned me: "THAT IS NOT TRUE!

The Supreme Court overturned Michigan v. Jackson which has nothing to do with Miranda. Basically all they did was say that just because you have a court appointed attorney that does not mean that the police can not contact you in an attempt to question you. All you have to do is cite miranda and refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer present and interrogation must stop."

It was also a bit scary about how the quote from the court case referred to OUR RIGHTS as something of too much cost at too little benefit...

That is, the person in the video says that we no longer have our Miranda Rights because of this ruling, but the person replying says we still do.
Is he right, or full of crap.  (I'm guessing it's the latter).
And if so, why (as he quoted from the source).
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537
May 31, 2009, 06:09:37 PM #3
Supreme Court rulings don't matter. Our rights don't come from them. You have the rights you fight for.
June 12, 2009, 04:55:01 AM #4
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on May 31, 2009, 03:51:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsA3ni5fVAY ("No more Miranda Rights = the Continued Downfall of America" by SafeArmsReview)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWX40D42hM ("No more Miranda Rights = the Continued Downfall of America Part 2" by SafeArmsReview)

I got this response:
"THAT IS NOT TRUE!

The Supreme Court overturned Michigan v. Jackson which has nothing to do with Miranda. Basically all they did was say that just because you have a court appointed attorney that does not mean that the police can not contact you in an attempt to question you. All you have to do is cite miranda and refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer present and interrogation must stop.

Quoted from the ruling:
Jackson's marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs. Even without Jackson, few badger-ing-induced waivers, if any, would be admitted at trial because theCourt has taken substantial other, overlapping measures to exclude them. Under Miranda, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present. 384 U. S., at
474. Under Edwards, once such a defendant "has invoked his [Miranda] right," interrogation must stop. 451 U. S., at 484. And under Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 146, no subsequent interro-gation may take place until counsel is present. Id., at 153. These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. On the other side of the equation, the principal cost of applying Jackson's rule is that crimes can go unsolved and criminals unpunished when uncoerced confes-sions are excluded and when officers are deterred from even trying to obtain confessions. The Court concludes that the Jackson rule does not ";pay its way," United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907–908, n. 6, and thus the case should be overruled. Pp. 13–18.

Complete ruling here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1529.pdf

EDIT: I just wanted to add that it is possible that this will mean that the police will be able to talk intelligence challenged individuals into waiving their right to have counsel present before questioning although they already have an appointed attorney. Basically all this is going to do is allow the police to trick more dumb people, or those with no knowledge of their rights."

What do you think?
I feel like someone's lying to me about this...


Rights are entitlements or permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature. Rights are of vital importance in the fields of law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. And this right always have a law that will protect.



_________________
California Orange County Lawyer
User actions
Print
Go Up Pages1