When is the right to remain silent not a right to remain silent? When you have to speak in order to claim it.
That is the bizarre paradox that the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, enshrined in the Constitution on Monday.
Van Thompkins, a criminal suspect, was not interested in talking to the police, and he never affirmatively waived his right to remain silent. But the court ruled that by not saying clearly that he was exercising his right to remain silent, he in fact forfeited the right — and that a one-word answer he gave late in the questioning could be used against him.
The ruling flies in the face of the court’s long-standing insistence that a suspect can waive his rights only by affirmatively doing so. The majority said it was standing by Miranda v. Arizona, the landmark 1966 case that revolutionized police interrogations. But in fact, the court created yet another gaping hole in the Miranda doctrine — this one backed by what can be described as Alice in Wonderland logic.
I think it bears repeating what I posted the last time this issue came up.
The court system has made up the Miranda Warning all on their own. An activist move every time they maintain/modify the Warning.
The goal is to prevent police abuse by using COERCION to force confessions. Thats admirable but the court being only human goes a few more steps. They equate being stupid and uninformed with being coerced. Now, I suppose that is “definitional” but I see some difference between not knowing your rights and voluntarily saying whatever you do versus being hit with a rubber hose. Maybe thats another demonstration of my inabiality to understand my court created Miranda Rights==but applying that understanding the court is moving AWAY FROM equating ignorance with coercion.
If truth is our guide, that is a good thing.
A loud, effusive, moist and pronounced fart would invalidate my right to remain silent?
Isn’t the whole point of “you have the right to remain silent” that, if you choose not to say anything, this cannot in any way be construed as an admission (e.g. along the logic of being silent because you’re hiding something)? It’s only if you *do* say something that it is permissible as evidence.
It’s basically codifying away the whole “if you’re innocent, you’ve got nothing to hide” fallacy.
Can the President executive order a reversal of SC rulings?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?
UNDERSTAND THIS.
There should be NO QUESTION in Miranda.
These are YOUR RIGHTS, they SHOULDNT be used as a QUESTION.
THERE IS NO YES OR NO to this.
upon hearing this, the ONLY answer is to ask/get a lawyer.
ECA–you say: “THERE IS NO YES OR NO to this.
upon hearing this, the ONLY answer is to ask/get a lawyer.” /// Ummm, no. Most Sup Ct rulings, as this one, strike a BALANCE of COMPETING social and legal interests. There is NO REASON to prohibit VOLUNTARY, non-coerced, confessions from people who choose to do so. Silly to argue an absolute position as you do. The whole point of “rights” against the government is to provide a check on abuse. Make the protections overbroad against the government at the abuse goes the other way. No rational person wants absolute positions enshrined. BALANCE in all things.
Actually, the logical extension of your position is that NO ONE should be allowed to be questioned at all without it all being filtered thru an attorney. That IS THE LOGIC of too much of the courts rulings in the past.
Focus on the nature of the admission: not was it “in the dope’s long term interest” but rather was it truly “voluntary” or not? We certainly don’t want a system wherein even the stupid and poor criminals get away with murder to we? Imagine what Pedro would do with such a panoply of society destroying rights set forth before him? I’d say “he’d take advantage of them” but the truth is such a position requires no other outcome–no choice involved.
In a free society, the stupid and uniformed should be allowed to tell the truth.
One gets the impression that individual rights and freedoms have been getting chipped away at for quite some time now. It’s easy, see, you just crank up the fear factor, throw in a few crisis and disasters, keep the people stressed out, then you start telling them how they need to change the laws and the constitution, for national security, for their own good…
People that are frightend and stressed out are easier to take advantage of.
Much ado about nothing. Tell the police you want to remain silent and then do so.
#14 So you think the Supreme Court are mostly progressives? HAHAHAHA
>Only if you invoke your right do you have it.
No, this is not true. Only if you waive the right, do you not have it. The Constitution is full of negative rights, what the government cannot do. The rights are preexisting the Constitution. You do not have to invoke a right to have it.
Your followup headline about protections is more accurate.
My theory is that as a young lad he spent too much time with the family puppies and daddy’s slippers, but later found religion.
So when the officer asked “if he had prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting.” he heard “prayed to God to forgive him for the chew thing.” and of course he answered yes. Grin.
Reasonable doubt.
Why is it that its legal for the Police to lie to YOU, but you can’t lie to THEM?
#32 That’s why I will answer any questions from the police with “I choose to remain silent.” You can’t be accused of lying if you only say, “May I leave?” and “I choose to remain silent.”
Just one more reason to appoint lots and lots of intelligent progressive judges who have the U.S. and individuals best interest in mind rather than some conservative corporate and/or self-interest.
#6
It’s exactly what you’ve described. Members here just don’t read!!!
As soon as he replied “yes” to a question within the case his rights were gone. Simple as that. How the fck so many of you can’t understand this is freaking hilarious.
“How the fck so many of you can’t understand this is freaking hilarious.”
It’s the same deficiency that leads people to believe that US citizens are parcels and thus, interstate commerce. Illiteracy.