The right not to remain silent...

[RZetlin]

You can kiss your rights out the window if this passes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021202/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_questioning_4
).

[Cyber E.]

And to think, I thought the American Goverment was in bad shape already. This is seriously the begining of the end for the States. Taking away the Miranda rights is like putting salmon on a cheeseburger, it is plain nonsense!

[Beat]

Not happening, considering that city is mostly Democrat.

[Sandro]

No.....just no.

[Nightflower]

That's horrible! Poor Americans!

[Outlander00]

Well... I dont know about you... But I am going to apply for political asylum in Canada :p

Seriously though... Theres no way the Supreme court will allow and overturn the Miranda rights. However, if by chance they do recend the previous ruling that created the Miranda rights, thenmany of us in the United States are going to be in serious trouble.

[Nightflower]

Originally posted by Outlander00
Well... I dont know about you... But I am going to apply for political asylum in Canada :p

Seriously though... Theres no way the Supreme court will allow and overturn the Miranda rights. However, if by chance they do recend the previous ruling that created the Miranda rights, thenmany of us in the United States are going to be in serious trouble.
You can live with me! My roommate won't mind! :)

[Galaxia]

If that passes, I'm moving to Crete!

This is terrible! I hope it doesn't get passed!

[Jedigreedo]

Originally posted by Nightflower
You can live with me! My roommate won't mind! :)

You best put specific names in that otherwise you're gonna have countless geeks at your door. :D Ok maybe not...


I doubt they'll pass it, just doesn't seem like something that would get thrown away from just one incident.

[Barb Gordon]

I would hope the Supreme Court would have enough of an intelligence to keep the Miranda rights in. Sometimes these deal with terrorism gets a bit excessive and seems to be breaking down and attacking the very things we need to stay intact the most. The officer was lousy at doing his job for not giving that guy his rights. Sure he could have kept questioning him after I suppose, but he should haved stated the Miranda rights. The officer is an idiot. Then again, the Miranda rights aren't exactly that old, they've only been around sine 1966, and the SC has overturned many laws that have been around much longer. Still, I've got faith in the Supreme Court, in general they seem to know what they're doing, and I think they'll have enough sense here to rule correctly.

~Barb

[Digu Volz]

This won't pass; have more faith in people, uh, people.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by Nightflower
You can live with me! My roommate won't mind! :)

I might have to take you up on that offer :p

[RZetlin]

Don't worry, ever since America declared war on terrorism, Americans are getting use to getting their rights taken away.

In good time America will become a dictatorship that Americans will show indifference to.

[zmanjz]

I believe that the DOJ is on Shaky ground.

The Rhenquist court is the first to actually recognize Miranda as a constutitional guarantee (See Dickerson) as opposed to a judicial rule.

Plus the actual lawsuit is being brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983

The issue in this case is: Can you sue the police for a violation of your miranda rights.

If the answer is Yes, it expands Miranda.

If the answer is no, then Miranda stays the same, and you have to sue as a violation of your rights and privleges under the local (or federal) battery statute.

Under the facts of this case, I believe that excessive force was used. (don't get me wrong, I'm Pro-Law enforcement... but this was just wrong.)

The AP reporter is incorrect in their understanding of the facts of this case. (I mean we just finished this section in Criminal Procedure, so it's fresh in my mind.)

So don't worry about this one infringing upon your rights...

No matter what the outcome of this case, you can sue the government for beating information out of you.

(But I'm bettin' the Rhenquist court will find for the Plaintiff. (Against the Gov't)

Worry about this (http://www.msnbc.com/news/839679.asp?0dm=T346N) instead

[meatwad945]

Originally posted by RZetlin
Don't worry, ever since America declared war on terrorism, Americans are getting use to getting their rights taken away.

In good time America will become a dictatorship that Americans will show indifference to.


hahha war on terror thats funny actully its a load of crap bush and the "terrorist" are friends wether you like it or not. Yea BUSH is a OIL jockey its all about money filthy things known as the government

[jeffrey 228]

Well I don't even want to see the pic but I do hope it will not pass, because it is bad enough already.

[Krayenhoff]

The Miranda reading is nothing more than nonsense. It exists only to let lucky criminals off the hook. Of all the shady things the government is doing right now to increase defense, this is what you pick on?

[Zechs]

No it does not. It's there to protect the people from being treated unfairly be you aressted for a major crimre or a minor one. Just because ther are criminals does't make them any less human thatn the rest of us. Yes they did something wrong and they should pay but it doesn't give the officer the right to treat them like crap just because. How would you like if your parents treated you like crap because you broke their vase that cost a fortune? I think the I idea fo taking away anyones right is wrong no matter what they did. Rember our justice system is far form perfect and is goign to make mistakes. Taking away the Miranda right is wrong plain and simple.

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by Zechs
No it does not. It's there to protect the people from being treated unfairly be you aressted for a major crimre or a minor one. Just because ther are criminals does't make them any less human thatn the rest of us. Yes they did something wrong and they should pay but it doesn't give the officer the right to treat them like crap just because. How would you like if your parents treated you like crap because you broke their vase that cost a fortune? I think the I idea fo taking away anyones right is wrong no matter what they did. Rember our justice system is far form perfect and is goign to make mistakes. Taking away the Miranda right is wrong plain and simple.

Criminals forfeit their rights by violating the law. That is all.

[Digu Volz]

Originally posted by RZetlin
Don't worry, ever since America declared war on terrorism, Americans are getting use to getting their rights taken away.

In good time America will become a dictatorship that Americans will show indifference to.

Out of curiosity, could you name a few of the rights taken away ?

[DarthNuriko]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
Criminals forfeit their rights by violating the law. That is all. And what if they're innocent?

[Zechs]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
Criminals forfeit their rights by violating the law. That is all. So I guess that gives the cpos the right to beat them to a bloddy plup. My piont is criminals are human and they desrive to be treated as such. Besides when they go to jail they give up all their rights excpt the basic ones unless you think they don't desrive those either.

[zmanjz]

Originally posted by Digu Volz
Out of curiosity, could you name a few of the rights taken away ?

Right To Privacy, Right to have unscreened E-Mail, Right to Writ of Habeas Corpus, etc...

(See 6th, 9th, and 14th Ammendments)




(Man, I must be lookin for trouble tonight.)

[Krayenhoff]

And what if they're innocent?

Then they'll be acquitted in a court of law.


So I guess that gives the cpos the right to beat them to a bloddy plup. My piont is criminals are human and they desrive to be treated as such. Besides when they go to jail they give up all their rights excpt the basic ones unless you think they don't desrive those either.

No, it just gives the cops the right not to have to mouth an unnecessary and idiotic warning to whomever they're arresting. A criminal violates the social contract by breaking the law. Therefore, he willingly gives up his rights and becomes a charge of the state. He's still protected from cruel and unusual punishment and the rest of his rights still have to be taken away through due process, exactly as the Constitution says. Where you get, "The cops are allowed to beat him up now" from their inability to tell him that he doesn't have to speak to them without a lawyer present is beyond me.

You do not have the right to be informed of your rights when you break the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that declares that.


Out of curiosity, could you name a few of the rights taken away ?

Right To Privacy, Right to have unscreened E-Mail, Right to Writ of Habeas Corpus, etc...

Right to privacy is a fallacy. It does not appear in the Constitution.

Right to having unscreened e-mail is covered under "unreasonable search and seizure." That is a problem that should be dealt with.

As far as I know, habeas corpus has not been suspended. You're going to have to point out where it has been taken away. And don't refer to non-citizen enemy combatants, please. They're not citizens and therefore not protected under the Constitution. Neither should Americans who support terrorism be protected.

[zmanjz]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
Right to privacy is a fallacy. It does not appear in the Constitution.



I would argue that it falls under the 9th ammendment.

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by zmanjz
I would argue that it falls under the 9th ammendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How so?

[RZetlin]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
Then they'll be acquitted in a court of law.


So it's guilty until proven innocent then?


Originally posted by Krayenhoff
No, it just gives the cops the right not to have to mouth an unnecessary and idiotic warning to whomever they're arresting. A criminal violates the social contract by breaking the law. Therefore, he willingly gives up his rights and becomes a charge of the state. He's still protected from cruel and unusual punishment and the rest of his rights still have to be taken away through due process, exactly as the Constitution says. Where you get, "The cops are allowed to beat him up now" from their inability to tell him that he doesn't have to speak to them without a lawyer present is beyond me.


Isn't a person consider to be criminal after the court finds him guilty for breaking the law?

Until proven otherwise, the person is consider a suspect.

Last time I checked a person is consider innocent until proven guilty.

You can accused a person of doing a crime, but that doesn't mean he did it.

[Krayenhoff]

So it's guilty until proven innocent then?

If they're going to be acquitted, then they were never guilty to begin with.


Isn't a person consider to be criminal after the court finds him guilty for breaking the law?

Until proven otherwise, the person is consider a suspect.

Last time I checked a person is consider innocent until proven guilty.

You can accused a person of doing a crime, but that doesn't mean he did it.

This has nothing to do with Miranda. You're entering an entirely different part of the criminal trial phase. A criminal's guilt or innocence is not decided at the time of his arrest, and at no point will his awareness of his rights be a factor in the decision.

By the way, a person is ASSUMED to be guilty by the authorities if he's arrested. You're only arrested if there's sufficient evidence to suggest that you may have performed a crime. Nevertheless, the prosecution still has to provide the burden of proof to convict you, which is another matter completely.

Do you even know what the Miranda reading is? All it is is that when someone is arrested, that person has to be informed of his rights, mainly that he has the right to not respond to the police without a lawyer present. This has no bearing on the person's guilt or innocence. If he's guilty, I should certainly hope that he provides as much information as possible. If he's innocent, then it won't matter what he has to say since there won't be enough evidence to convict. How you think that removing this technicality will magically make everyone who's arrested be easy to convict is a mystery to me. I think you should research this matter more fully before you jump to outrageous conclusions.

[DarthNuriko]

Then they'll be acquitted in a court of law. But only AFTER they get beaten.... :p

[Pilmedium]

If this change occurs, it will definitely do more harm than good. A few more people will be caught, and many more tortured. The judicial branch really needs to learn that rules in effect for a long time should not be repealed due to one incident.

[Krayenhoff]

If this change occurs, it will definitely do more harm than good. A few more people will be caught, and many more tortured. The judicial branch really needs to learn that rules in effect for a long time should not be repealed due to one incident.

This does not make sense.

1. How will not reading arrested criminals their rights lead to more criminals being arrested?

2. How will not reading arrested criminals their rights lead to torture? It's not like before Miranda was in existence the police were allowed to flog suspects. You need to find evidence that this is going to lead to mass abuse.