Two top Republicans have already announced their support for a bill that would give the police the power to choose who gets read their rights:
After McCain, now it’s Lindsey Graham who’s saying certain crime suspects shouldn’t be read their Miranda rights. “Miranda warnings are counterproductive in my view,” Graham said at a Senate hearing Wednesday.
He’s trying to introduce a bill that would give law enforcement the power to decide if a detainee should or should not be read his rights. Graham said that he already had some Democrats on board, but wouldn’t name any names.
you might want to post to the actual story instead of some blog that links to the story http://politico.com/news/stories/0510/36813.html
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
Abraham Lincoln
Slowly but surely we are destroying ourselves…
Really, who cares about being READ the rights, so long as you still have them.
Is there any situation where you might get in trouble with a state or federal law enforcement agency where those miranda rights don’t apply? If not, then whats the problem, you still have the rights and its YOUR own stupid fault if you decide to waive them by opening your yapper.
I’ve probably got this legally wrong, but before our activist courts stepped in I think there was a right to a jury trial. That right still exists. The Miranda Warning was passed to put great pressure on the police not to torture arrestees to get evidence. Completely court made rule which of course has been applied to the point that now people are not even allowed to confess. Silly Rule.
But the original concern remains. How to make sure “for real” that cops don’t abuse their authority? I would think simple enforcement of “no physical coercion” wtihout the need for a Miranda Warning should be workable.
It all comes down to a balance from the real excesses of the police versus allowing the truth to be known.
Lots of people have problems with the truth. Too many think it is a violation of privacy.
Silly twits.
If you read the actual article it looks like someone has been watching too much 24.
I clicked thru the links to Grahams concern: he doesn’t think Terrorist Suspects, American Citizens or not, should get Miranda Warnings.
I’m still ok with no Miranda for anyone. It may be impossible to separate, but the access to an attorney that is part of the warning is a separate issue in my mind and difficult to work out rules about how long the law would have before they have to tell you and actually provide access to the public defender.===So, from the timing aspect, does kind of look like a modified Miranda at a minimum does make sense?
POWER vs Rights–no right for cops to beat a confession out of you. They can still DO IT of course==they just can’t prosecute you later based on the evidence they secure. Lots of wiggle room between the two great ideas. We should try to fashion a more pragmatic approach, see it if works, modify as experience teaches us.
5 famous words…remember them “I have nothing to say”. City, County, State or Federal, any ask you a question you repeat those 5 words and let a lawyer do the talking for you. Never talk to the cops. Miranda shouldn’t even matter if you are smart about it and keep your mouth shut.
As far a Senator Lindsey Graham, LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL……everyone’s favorite buried deep in the closet politician. If you dont like any legislation he sponsors, start bringing up the issue of is sexuality. Worked for ALIPAC.
I’m having some trouble with this.
I am ok with not having to give the miranda to those who are not american citizens, but I have heartburn allowing a beat cop to throw away the rights of an american citizen because the cop thinks someone “might” be a terrorist.
What exactly is the criteria to strip a person of their rights, right there on the spot?
And what next? Throw a suspected “terrorist” in jail till they talk? After all, they haven’t been read their rights.
Is this an attempt to extend pseudo-legal extradition from foreign countries to within the US?
Isn’t that what Gitmo is all about?
Hey is this good or bad? I don’t know how to dance the Miranda and it sounds Mexican. Just tell me what to put on the sign.
#8 This ISN’T about removing anyone’s miranda rights, just not giving them the little speech when they get arrested to remind them of their rights.
What evidence do McCain and Graham have to back their effort to take away our rights?
Faisal Shahzad was given his rights and he’s talking.
The underwear bomber dude was given his rights and he confessed, too.
If the 5th amendment is waived, then the right to convict should also be waived. Tit for tat.
Informing someone that they have the right to legal advice and the right not to provide evidence against himself could be provided by a PSA.
However, if we are to be “the shining city on the hill”, and the “beacon of liberty”, then we should do the right thing and warn any suspect of any crime that anything he says can be used against him during a trial.
Wow, zybch. Stunning.
Read and learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona#Arrest_and_conviction
It’s ironic that Miranda started in Arizona.
# 13 Ah_Yea – It’s ironic that Miranda started in Arizona.
I assume you refer to Az’s recent immigration law. Where is the irony?
A case in Az concerning robbery and rape was overturned because a man apparently did not understand his right to an attorney.
Now Az claims the right to confirm the immigration status of certain individuals whom they have reason to believe are not legally in this nation.
I see no irony.
Thanks Ah Yea–as always, more complicated than I supposed.
I recall reading a case about some guy that stole a truck full of “steaks.” He got caught and put in the back of the cop car. Two cops in front started laughing back and forth and asked the guy if he knew what he had stolen and then said “a bunch of cow ass-holes.” The arrestee got embarassed and confessed to the crime.
That was held to be coercion under the “inherent authority of the State” and the conviction thrown out. I think that was bad law. Other several cases much like that where “in fact” there is no coercion at all.
Why does the pendulum always have to swing outside the bounds of common sense?
Been thinking.
I think what with the ease with which our police and other law enforcement agencies could slip into abuse, better to have an overreaching law that is easier to enforce, than a more sophisticated law that is more subject to interpretation.
That said, the courts ought to back off a bit on finding “coercion” where it doesn’t in fact exist. Finding the guilty people is actually a valid government activity.
@zybch
You read the rights to inform people. Not everyone knows they have these rights, or may think they don’t apply to their situation. It isn’t a matter of being stupid or not, it is really just being uninformed.
I don’t see why anyone could ever take issue with a 15 second speech the police read to you. The fact that lawmakers are wasting time on such a seemingly pointless issue remind me why congress is pile. This is just congress putting up a theater act of look how tough we can be on terrorists, or at least that is how it will be used.
Why don’t we just go all out?
C’mon no pussyfooting around with criminals anymore. Instate a US version of kiri sute gomen and get it over with!
I mean that is what everyone really wants. If you are not a criminal why would you fear cops from becoming judge, jury and executioner?
We already have a limited hush hush version of it now.
Why not just make it policy?
I am sure it would be beneficial. As all those criminals would be dead and no one would have to care for them.
Just remind yourselves. You are a criminal when you speed, litter, loiter and not wear your seat belts in many states.
Kiri sute gomen for all of us!
Cursor_
#17 So people shouldn’t have a responsibility to know what their rights are?
Seriously, anyone dumb enough to not know that they don’t have to say anything and that they can get a lawyer (their own or a court appointed one) deserves to be locked up.
I guess the stereotypical American that just can’t shut their traps to save themselves is absolutely true.
zybch==”absolutely?”–No. But quite often. Just watch your reality cop shows. Low life is usually happy to explain to the cops just why the other person deserved it.
Sadly, our Sup Ct confuses ignorance with involuntariness, AND THEN involuntariness with coercion.
The folks sure do back flips to avoid common sense.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is a good reason to NOT read people their miranda rights.
It only takes a couple of seconds and basically indemnifies the arresting authority against claims that the suspect wasn’t informed about what their rights are.
However, thats NOT what many knee jerk idiots reading this story have in their heads. They somehow think that by not reading people their rights that those rights are being removed. They’re not.
I just wish people would read things more carefully before spouting off bullshit that makes them look like freaking retards!
I have difficulty believing the issue of reading Miranda rights is a real problem in this country.
What percent of serious criminals get off because of this issue?
Better to have a few mandatory rights to balance the equation lest we become a police state.
As far as I can tell, in whatever few cases where a suspect admitted to a crime without being read Miranda rights, there was probably enough evidence to convict even without the admission.
Much ado about nothing, unless there is some other issue that is not obvious.
Bobbo, the court in the Dickerson case had 5 members who had written dissents against Miranda in the past, but 3 of them decided to keep it anyway.
Did anyone actually see Lindsey Graham speak? Don’t read a terrorist his Miranda rights but heaven forbid you should stop him from buying as many guns and as much ammo as he can carry. It came across as pretty moronic. I’m with zybch. I don’t really care if I’m read my rights as long as I still have them.
Thank you, bobbo.
I knew the thinkers in this forum could see the implications beyond the immediate headlines.
“our Sup Ct confuses ignorance with involuntariness, AND THEN involuntariness with coercion.”
EXACTLY! EXACTLY! EXACTLY!!
Where does this end? What is the endgame? Throwing you in jail and tossing the key because someone THINKS you’re a terrorist? Are we imbuing our police with the authority of the Stazi?
It doesn’t matter. In most cases, by the time you get read your Miranda rights, it is too late. You only get read your rights when they arrest you. The police will ask you questions before they arrest you. It is best not to talk to the police at all or to stop questioning by stating you will remain silent until you can speak to a lawyer. You might give them enough to arrest you: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912#
I’ll always talk to the cops. I figure I should make their jobs easier, since my tax dollars pay for their time. They aren’t after me anyway, so why not let them know that? I keep it short and to the point.
I’d still like to know exactly where it is in the Constitution that it says the rights protections and laws of this country apply only to citizens.
Welcome to “Amerika”….the big government super state brought to you by Republicans. Republicans, want the government to have the right to kill you (death penalty), but YOU can’t legally end your own life, only the government can. The government will decide what intoxicants you can use. The government will decide who you’re able to marry. The government will decide what positions you can have sex in with another adult, the government will listen to your phone calls, read your emails without a warrant, and can take you from your house in the middle of the night without any legal recourse and hold you as a “terrorist” at the whim of the President.
But if we say you should have health care, OH MY GOD…the government is going too far!
What’s WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!
@28 Keep in mind this whole thing came up in regards to that NY Times Square bomber…who IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. So while you have a point, in this case, just like Oklahoma City, we’re talking about terrorists who are citizens, covered by the Constitution. I know Republicans, and right wing Democrats, would take this opportunity to further tear down the Constitution and make a police state.
But as long as we don’t get “forced” to have health insurance, that would be going too far. (sigh)