Okay now this is just plain wrong!

A.B.Normal

A.B.Normal

New Member
U.S. Supreme Court could make Miranda warnings thing of the past

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/01/scotus.police.questioning.ap/index.html

"It's tragic," said Alan E. Wisotsky, the lawyer for the city of Oxnard, "but you can't look at it from a philanthropic standpoint. He tried to kill police officers or they thought he was trying to kill them .... Does the tape (of the interrogation) sound bad? Yes, the guy is in agony. But the questioning was to get at the truth."
Click to expand...
 
Miranda is pointless. If people would read & understand the Constitution & Bill of Rights there'd be no need for the cops telling one what each should already know. 5th amendment says it all.

Coersion can & should remain a loophole.
 
your right about that gonz but according to what my criminal justice teacher says that by law when arrested they have to inform you of your rights. which to me is pointless as there is not only the 5th amendment but the 6th,8th,14th as well. and otehrs too that i cant think of.
 
We discussed this at length in my Cjad class, and came to the conclusion that there is a reasonable expectation for the average person to know thier rights. I think it is wrong when a person confesses to a crime, and then claims his rights weren't read to him. I'm sorry, but if you spend even 4 hours watching primetime tv, you will hear the rights at least once. It should be something taught in schools, and something you have to know to get into our country, then there should be no need for a police officer to read them to you each time you are questioned.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have the rights. I think it is essential that we do, but I don't think the police should have to continually inform you of those rights, it is your duty to know your rights.
 
i agree with PT that it should be taught in our schools. it was taught to me in 10th grade for NSL class. its been told to us reitierated a number of times in my CJ class. as american citizens we need to know our rights and our freedoms as well as our laws.
 
I have to say that Miranda should stay. Its there to stop government abuse and getting rid of it would put our rights in danger. The majority of arrests in this country don't happen on a golf green amidst the affluent and well educated. They happen wherever we corral the disenfranchised and illiterate. A simple thing like at what point are you entitled to have a lawyer present creates a sticky legal situation. I would think that MORE criminals would escape justice because of having their rights violated by overzealous police investigators.
And PT...Suddenly we're going to lean on "duty" as a reason after you argued against duty when it comes time to serve? I don't understand .
 
Ok, you want to call it responsibility? Whatever. I just think that most people know what their rights are. I'm not saying to do away with Miranda exactly, just that if a person confesses before the police have a chance to read them thier rights, it should still be able to be used against them. Also, the point you are entitled to a lawyer is the point you are not free to walk out of the police station.
 
Actually PT, you can ask for a lawyer immediately, without saying anything to police (except "I want a lawyer"). That just made my point. :D And, if you blurt out a confession before the police even start questioning you, it IS admissable in court. As soon as the police (or other authorities) realise that you are saying something incriminating, they are reqired to Marandize you.
 
squiggy i never said get rid of it neither did anyone else. what i said and im sure PT will agree is that we need to know them and learn our freedoms and rights in our school. im for it because the accused should have rights and in a court of law you need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. now for the guilty id vote for less rights that does not mean get rid of miranda.
 
one more thing to you PT. it doesnt matter if its called duty or responsibilty as there is no doubt people should know the rules,laws,and freedoms we have no matter where we are. ill call it responsibilty of our citizens since i dont want too much controversy to erupt.
 
freako, that was my response to the original subject. And I agree. Convicted people have WAY to many rights. It seems you get extra rights for being a convict. They should forfeit their rights on conviction (other than the right to appeal, of course).
 
Squiggy said:
freako, that was my response to the original subject. And I agree. Convicted people have WAY to many rights. It seems you get extra rights for being a convict. They should forfeit their rights on conviction (other than the right to appeal, of course).
Click to expand...

The convicted have those rights because the liberal court system has agreed that they have them. As we all know, most courts have appointed jurists, and therein lies the problem. I agree that prisoners are entitled to rights, but not to the extent the court system has granted them. For instance...If you have to pay for it in the outside 'free' world, then it's not a right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top