Miranda Rights soon to be Abolished?
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Miranda Rights soon to be Abolished?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    222

    Miranda Rights soon to be Abolished?

    Written by marchon at http://www.zzine.org/modules.php?op=...rticle&sid=490 and encouraged to spread.



    In the US, all suspects being accused of a crime have "the right to remain silent, and to have an attorney present during questioning if they so desired." This blanket requirement of Miranda warnings for all suspects came about because of a US Supreme Court desicion in 1966 that a confession by "Ernesto Miranda" was invalid,
    because he did not know that he had the right to remain silent.

    "A generation of Americans has grown up since 1966 confident that, if brought to the police station for questioning, we have the right to remain silent, that the police will warn us of that right and, above all, that they will respect its exercise," said a friend-of-the-court brief by the American Civil Liberties Union and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

    That could all be a thing of the past. The court could decide that the earlier court went too far with it's prior Miranda decision.

    "... If petitioners' theory of the Fifth Amendment is correct, then the public's confidence has been misplaced for all these decades and is about to be shattered," said the American Civil Liberties Union and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice brief.

    Here is what happened: the defendant in the case about to be heard was 'gravely wounded' and 'screamed in agony,' according to a CNN article. The defendant claimed "I am dying! ... What are you doing to me?" Martinez is heard screaming on a recording of the persistent interrogation by police. (Yes, A RECORDING)

    The response of the police was: "If you are going to die, tell me what happened," the officer said. He continued the questioning in an ambulance and an emergency room while Martinez pleaded for treatment. No Miranda warning was given.

    There may be a little good news... The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a federal judge that the confession was coerced and cannot be used as evidence against Martinez. It said Chavez should have known that questioning a man who had been shot five times, was crying out for treatment and had been given no Miranda warning was a violation of his constitutional rights.

    The US Justice Department, on the other hand, filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with police organizations and the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation contending that unfettered police questioning is allowable, so long as the information obtained from a suspect is not used against that person in court.

    "This is a case to be concerned about," said Charles Weisselberg, a University of California, Berkeley, law professor. "To see the (U.S.) solicitor general arguing that there's no right to be free from coercive interrogation is pretty aggressive."


    In the original court Miranda decision, much time was spent putting a historical picture on potential abuses not protected by a clear guideline. In the decision it is stated that "They [our forefathers] knew that "illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing ... by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure."

    I hope that you share this information with others, and help to insure that "no slight deviations from legal modes of prodedure change the protections granted to Americans under the Constitution of the United States of America."

  2. #2
    Senior Member The Old Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    364
    i can't see a lot of real change from the original Miranda concept: The court still says any coerced confession cannot be used against the person it was coerced from. Even tho DOJ and others have filed friends of the court briefs on the current case to relax the Miranda ruling, that does not mean the justices will do it. But then, who knows?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    posted 11-26-2002 01:05 AM

    http://www.antionline.com/showthread...148#post584797

    beat'em by almost a week. glad you gave it its own thread though.

    whats even scarier though is the current dispute. does miranda even apply if no charges are brought. This means cops can really lay it on you is they're not going to charge you and your entiteled to no protection at all.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    263
    Originally posted here by Tedob1
    posted 11-26-2002 01:05 AM

    beat'em by almost a week. glad you gave it its own thread though.
    any one else sick of these little "i said it first" comments, or is it just me?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    46
    What's almost as scary as this is that people can make false claims to police about you with little recourse on your part against that person for lying. A friend of mine just spent 36 hours in jail after someone made a false claim to police about him. Luckily, he wasn't scheduled to work or he would have lost his job. The humiliation of jail will change anyone, he said. I don't want to delve into it further; it's just a bad situation.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    167
    Well a lot of this has to do with the "Christian burial" case a few years back. I can't remember all the details of the case but on Christmas a guy killed someone and was arrested by the police. On the ride to the police station one officer said to the other officer, "I wish we knew where the body was located so we can her a proper Christian burial. The killer said, "I agree lets me take you to the body". Some say it was good police work. However the supreme court ruled that what the officers did was unconstitutional and violated his 5th amendment rights.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    889
    Fact is that American rights have and will continue to be taken away. While I deplore terroriest activities, their operations cannot intrude upon basic rights. If our right to speak freely, call into question our local state and federal goverments are taken then have not these terroriest won? They striped up of our freedoms using our own goverment quest of geez best I can describe as 1950 cowboy justice. So what now will Mr. Ashcroft say you have no right to remain silent because you are a terroriest, have no right to an attorney, be held under miltary law in undisclosed places? Points to ponder for sure where it will go I cannot say but having 3 sons I fear the life and rules they may have to live under is things continue to go unquesioned. Me have my retirement place already and it's outside the US, like SS will pay anything Peace
    I believe that one of the characteristics of the human race - possibly the one that is primarily responsible for its course of evolution - is that it has grown by creatively responding to failure.- Glen Seaborg

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    15
    uhm, I think its about time the miranda warnings went down the drain. The 5th amendment has been raped and turned inside and out so much that its rediculous. If yer not guilty of anything then you have nothing to worry about. The god damn criminals in this country are given tooooooooo many rights and our constitution has been used only to assist the bad guys. If someone incriminaltes themselves then so be it. having protection against incriminationg yourself is totaly rediculous. **** the criminals, we need to protect the victims. And like I said, if you didnt do anything bad then you have nothing to worry about, thats all I have to say.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •