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.
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
SCOTUS Update: Right to remain silent? Suspect better speak up -
01/06/2010 07:53:14 PM
- 1034 Views
What I don't like about this decision...
01/06/2010 08:21:02 PM
- 617 Views
I think the only potential issue is if the person didn't understand the Miranda warning.
01/06/2010 10:37:42 PM
- 545 Views
that is an odd way of looking at it
01/06/2010 11:58:12 PM
- 555 Views
I'm more referring to the almost "magic words" that Kennedy introduces here.
02/06/2010 12:18:07 AM
- 577 Views
So we should not allow police to question people at all?
02/06/2010 12:31:27 AM
- 512 Views
You won't hear me complain if the Miranda rights are scaled back a bit.
02/06/2010 12:40:23 AM
- 521 Views
Forgot to mention - the 5-4 decision was split between cons and libs, but.....
01/06/2010 08:36:41 PM
- 536 Views
This seems reasonable to me.
01/06/2010 09:47:34 PM
- 579 Views
I'm stunned. Your response was reasoned, logical and concise. What have you done with Joel?
01/06/2010 10:43:22 PM
- 553 Views
Joel is going to be so pissed when he finds out that you logged onto his account.....
02/06/2010 01:42:50 AM
- 563 Views
Hey deaf people who can't speak... pound sand.
01/06/2010 09:55:41 PM
- 637 Views
well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview
02/06/2010 12:26:31 AM
- 541 Views
Re: well the deaf can simply close their eyes and end the interview
02/06/2010 03:57:35 AM
- 562 Views
you are often questioned by the police? What are you doing to make that happen?
02/06/2010 03:35:47 PM
- 575 Views
This decision is a setback for us all.
01/06/2010 10:10:51 PM
- 659 Views
No it isn't.
01/06/2010 10:42:06 PM
- 579 Views
Re: No it isn't.
01/06/2010 11:26:07 PM
- 590 Views
Teach people to say "I'm not saying anything until my lawyer gets here." Period. *NM*
02/06/2010 12:38:24 AM
- 232 Views
Close, but not cigar.
02/06/2010 01:30:19 AM
- 595 Views
if they catch more bad guys is that a bad thing? *NM*
02/06/2010 01:50:12 AM
- 248 Views
Would you be okay with the prohibition of firearms if it lowered the crime rate?
02/06/2010 02:18:26 AM
- 545 Views
You are at the intersection of bull and shit.
02/06/2010 04:00:32 PM
- 579 Views
I am confused
01/06/2010 11:09:14 PM
- 568 Views
Re: I am confused
01/06/2010 11:15:07 PM
- 493 Views
ummm, no...
02/06/2010 12:13:59 AM
- 601 Views
Re: ummm, no...
02/06/2010 01:38:54 AM
- 531 Views
Nothing has changed
02/06/2010 01:56:08 AM
- 531 Views
Except you risk waiving them unless you specifically say you want to use them.
02/06/2010 04:07:51 AM
- 538 Views
not surprising that people who use phrases like "Police State of America" believe that
02/06/2010 03:24:25 PM
- 552 Views
As far as I can tell, this changes nothing and simply maintains the status quo.
01/06/2010 11:27:36 PM
- 560 Views
For those who don't understand the techniques of police interrogation let me make this clear.
02/06/2010 01:57:51 AM
- 599 Views
Good advice
02/06/2010 04:00:45 AM
- 503 Views