Graystar
Member
It amazes me, the number of people that that support the BoR and are against the Police State, that don’t understand what Miranda was all about. So I’m writing this so that everyone can be on the same page, on what I believe to be a very important issue relating to our rights.
First, to the point…
MIRANDA WARNINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING THE STATE!!
Second, some detail…
There is no law stating that those arrested must be apprised of their rights. The “requirement†came about from a Supreme Court case (Escobedo v. Illinois) where the confession of the accused was thrown out because it wasn’t clear if the accused 1) had spoken voluntarily, and 2) knew that he, by right, did not have to speak. However, it wasn’t until Miranda v. Arizona, a case two years later and reaffirming Escobedo, where the court stated the exact nature of the warning that is to be given, that the Miranda Warning was scripted.
Here is the Court’s own “in a nutshell†version of its Miranda ruling…
“Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.â€
What exactly is being protected here? The statements! More precisely, the “statements …stemming from custodial interrogation…†Notice that there is no prohibition against compelling you to speak! Recently, California tried to claim that it *could* compel you to speak because the right is against *using* the statement in court, not against getting it in the first place. Luckily, even California’s court saw the folly of that line of reasoning. Regardless, the fact remains that the warning protects the statement, not the individual.
Third, how it works…
As you all know, we are born with our rights. No one can take them away, and we possess our rights at all times. Also, our rights are supposedly protected at all times. Why then, do we need to be apprised of rights that the police already know we have and are duty bound to protect?? The answer is, because the police are going to try to violate those rights, which is an act they should not be attempting in the first place! In a perfect system there should be no difference in how the police process a person under arrest, regardless of whether the person was read their rights or not. However, in the current system the reading of rights is essentially a green light for compelling behavior by the police.
It is well known that the courts accept a policeman’s testimony on face value. That is why you can be found guilty of speeding when there is no actual evidence. Therefore, once rights have been read, it is extremely difficult to prove that, behind closed doors, a person was compelled to give testimony. All you have is the word of the accused vs. the word of an officer, and the court will always accept the testimony of an officer unless some actual evidence proves otherwise.
This is exactly what happened with the accused teenagers in the Central Park Jogger case of New York City. These teenagers were compelled to confess to a crime they didn’t commit. They recanted their confessions at the trial but that wasn’t enough to keep them from being convicted, even though their “confessions†conflicted, and even though there was no physical evidence. This is the true danger of the Miranda Warning.
Final Thought…
If we want to truly protect the Fifth Amendment right for everyone, we should abolish the Miranda Warning requirement and instead simply require that a lawyer must be present during any questioning.
First, to the point…
MIRANDA WARNINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING THE STATE!!
Second, some detail…
There is no law stating that those arrested must be apprised of their rights. The “requirement†came about from a Supreme Court case (Escobedo v. Illinois) where the confession of the accused was thrown out because it wasn’t clear if the accused 1) had spoken voluntarily, and 2) knew that he, by right, did not have to speak. However, it wasn’t until Miranda v. Arizona, a case two years later and reaffirming Escobedo, where the court stated the exact nature of the warning that is to be given, that the Miranda Warning was scripted.
Here is the Court’s own “in a nutshell†version of its Miranda ruling…
“Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.â€
What exactly is being protected here? The statements! More precisely, the “statements …stemming from custodial interrogation…†Notice that there is no prohibition against compelling you to speak! Recently, California tried to claim that it *could* compel you to speak because the right is against *using* the statement in court, not against getting it in the first place. Luckily, even California’s court saw the folly of that line of reasoning. Regardless, the fact remains that the warning protects the statement, not the individual.
Third, how it works…
As you all know, we are born with our rights. No one can take them away, and we possess our rights at all times. Also, our rights are supposedly protected at all times. Why then, do we need to be apprised of rights that the police already know we have and are duty bound to protect?? The answer is, because the police are going to try to violate those rights, which is an act they should not be attempting in the first place! In a perfect system there should be no difference in how the police process a person under arrest, regardless of whether the person was read their rights or not. However, in the current system the reading of rights is essentially a green light for compelling behavior by the police.
It is well known that the courts accept a policeman’s testimony on face value. That is why you can be found guilty of speeding when there is no actual evidence. Therefore, once rights have been read, it is extremely difficult to prove that, behind closed doors, a person was compelled to give testimony. All you have is the word of the accused vs. the word of an officer, and the court will always accept the testimony of an officer unless some actual evidence proves otherwise.
This is exactly what happened with the accused teenagers in the Central Park Jogger case of New York City. These teenagers were compelled to confess to a crime they didn’t commit. They recanted their confessions at the trial but that wasn’t enough to keep them from being convicted, even though their “confessions†conflicted, and even though there was no physical evidence. This is the true danger of the Miranda Warning.
Final Thought…
If we want to truly protect the Fifth Amendment right for everyone, we should abolish the Miranda Warning requirement and instead simply require that a lawyer must be present during any questioning.
