Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit

  1. #1
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,762

    High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit

    WASHINGTON – You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.

    You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?

    The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.

    The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

    "It's death by a thousand cuts," Fisher said. "For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects."

    The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.

    The court's three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims' rights group.

  2. #2
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    Positively sickening.

  3. #3
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,762
    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat View Post
    Positively sickening.
    I really do my best to try to maintain perspective, but I feel as though the conveyor belt is picking up speed and that something is going to happen soon.

    Don't you?

    Either there is going to be physical resistance, even a revolution - or the nascent police state is going to consolidate itself and we will wake up living in an absolute nightmare, where the individual has no freedom or rights and the state is everything.

    We're already 80 percent of the way there...

Similar Threads

  1. Warning!!!!!!!
    By grouch in forum Grouch's Garage
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-29-2010, 01:30 PM
  2. Kagan on the court bad news for gun rights
    By Eric in forum Guns, Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2010, 07:38 AM
  3. A warning in Massachussettes?
    By Eric in forum Secession Talk
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-19-2010, 03:10 PM
  4. Warning. We may be days away from a bank run
    By Eric in forum Survival/Economic Collapse
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 04:02 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-10-2007, 08:20 PM

Posting Permissions

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