Active Users:344 Time:09/04/2025 01:31:19 PM
This decision is a setback for us all. PerrinWT Send a noteboard - 01/06/2010 10:10:51 PM
I have a huge issue with this decision, and you can note that I am a conservative.

First, the problem with an "unambiguous" statement. The vast majority of the public lacks the knowledge to do this in a satisfactory way. Examples can be pulled from the "right to counsel." Do you think "I think I need a lawyer" or "Can I get a lawyer?" are unambiguous? You would be wrong. The first statement implies uncertainty when you say "think" and the second example is a query and not a definitive exercising of one's legal rights. The vast majority of people would believe they had properly asked for an attorney, but the courts have raised these technical barrier a laymen does not understand. The police have been trained to exploit this technicality and continue questioning despite the persons obvious intent. The police will use the same tactics to avoid you claiming your right to silence and will try to get you to waive the rights.

Second, the fifth amendment had a protection against compelled self incrimination, meaning the constitution requires that your silence cannot be used against you. Sotomyor (whom I hate to agree with) was right when she said it turns the Miranda on its head. To use the right to be silent you must now speak up? If you do not want to go swimming you must first enter the water? That simply does not make sense. Our founders put this important guarantee into the constitution because they witnessed the horrific abuses against an accused when they did not have a right to remain silent.

The rights given in the constitution were supposed to be available for every man, not just the legally trained mind. When you are being accused of a crime the government can bring incredible resources to bear upon a person, and even an innocent man might concede to a plea deal when the alternative is a stacked deck. Our Constitutional protections are there to even the playing field so the government cannot dominate its citizens either by brute force or legal technicalities. This decision is a setback for the rights of all Americans.

This message last edited by PerrinWT on 01/06/2010 at 10:14:17 PM
Reply to message
SCOTUS Update: Right to remain silent? Suspect better speak up - - 01/06/2010 07:53:14 PM 1105 Views
What I don't like about this decision... - 01/06/2010 08:21:02 PM 689 Views
I think the only potential issue is if the person didn't understand the Miranda warning. - 01/06/2010 10:37:42 PM 622 Views
Damn you common sense!!! *NM* - 02/06/2010 02:56:17 AM 272 Views
that is an odd way of looking at it - 01/06/2010 11:58:12 PM 635 Views
I'm more referring to the almost "magic words" that Kennedy introduces here. - 02/06/2010 12:18:07 AM 653 Views
So we should not allow police to question people at all? - 02/06/2010 12:31:27 AM 586 Views
You won't hear me complain if the Miranda rights are scaled back a bit. - 02/06/2010 12:40:23 AM 582 Views
The goal is not to keep guilty people from confessing - 02/06/2010 01:48:48 AM 602 Views
The way I see it... - 02/06/2010 03:06:01 AM 722 Views
Seems reasonable to me - 01/06/2010 09:44:30 PM 718 Views
This seems reasonable to me. - 01/06/2010 09:47:34 PM 661 Views
Hey deaf people who can't speak... pound sand. - 01/06/2010 09:55:41 PM 721 Views
well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview - 02/06/2010 12:26:31 AM 614 Views
Re: well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview - 02/06/2010 03:57:35 AM 625 Views
you are often questioned by the police? What are you doing to make that happen? - 02/06/2010 03:35:47 PM 664 Views
I travel internationally - 02/06/2010 08:40:38 PM 631 Views
This decision is a setback for us all. - 01/06/2010 10:10:51 PM 730 Views
No it isn't. - 01/06/2010 10:42:06 PM 648 Views
Re: No it isn't. - 01/06/2010 11:26:07 PM 659 Views
bah - 02/06/2010 12:11:46 AM 619 Views
Teach people to say "I'm not saying anything until my lawyer gets here." Period. *NM* - 02/06/2010 12:38:24 AM 260 Views
Close, but not cigar. - 02/06/2010 01:30:19 AM 667 Views
if they catch more bad guys is that a bad thing? *NM* - 02/06/2010 01:50:12 AM 277 Views
Would you be okay with the prohibition of firearms if it lowered the crime rate? - 02/06/2010 02:18:26 AM 629 Views
I think you have to have reasonable balance - 02/06/2010 05:48:31 PM 687 Views
You are at the intersection of bull and shit. - 02/06/2010 04:00:32 PM 651 Views
Re: You are at the intersection of bull and shit. - 02/06/2010 10:18:36 PM 640 Views
Hey douchebag, you're still wrong. - 02/06/2010 10:34:48 PM 622 Views
Any particular reason you started the name calling? - 02/06/2010 10:58:47 PM 563 Views
At what point did that happen? - 02/06/2010 01:26:13 AM 589 Views
This is what I alluded to in my response. - 02/06/2010 01:44:14 AM 688 Views
Re: At what point did that happen? - 02/06/2010 01:48:52 AM 706 Views
I am confused - 01/06/2010 11:09:14 PM 638 Views
Re: I am confused - 01/06/2010 11:15:07 PM 570 Views
ummm, no... - 02/06/2010 12:13:59 AM 667 Views
Re: ummm, no... - 02/06/2010 01:38:54 AM 604 Views
spare me the pontificating - 02/06/2010 01:50:27 AM 698 Views
Re: spare me the pontificating - 02/06/2010 02:01:27 AM 595 Views
you never wave your right to remain silent forever - 02/06/2010 01:53:07 AM 580 Views
It's perhaps odd that we're on opposite sides of this. - 02/06/2010 01:59:46 AM 617 Views
Nothing has changed - 02/06/2010 01:56:08 AM 605 Views
As far as I can tell, this changes nothing and simply maintains the status quo. - 01/06/2010 11:27:36 PM 634 Views
An interesting way of looking at it at the end. - 02/06/2010 02:05:34 AM 696 Views
For those who don't understand the techniques of police interrogation let me make this clear. - 02/06/2010 01:57:51 AM 681 Views
Good advice - 02/06/2010 04:00:45 AM 570 Views
I always love in the TV shows when... - 02/06/2010 04:16:35 AM 662 Views
Re: I always love in the TV shows when... - 02/06/2010 04:36:34 AM 760 Views

Reply to Message