Miranda – You probably don’t know what you’re talking about!

[Graystar]

flawed searches and arrests and interrogations can still potentially result in acceptable evidence..."good faith" exception

Yes, but there's no such thing as a "good faith" exception to compelled testimony. A compelled testimony is *always* invalid.

 

[brownie0486]

How does one compell me to do anything [ physical action ] or say anything unless I'm being beat to death and then fear the reaper more than I fear the truth?

Compelled tesimony?: The courts tell a reporter he goes to jail or submits to their demands to know the informants name and address.

Is he being compelled? I don't think so. He has the decision to make with two choices. When the decision is out of your hands, you have been compelled, as long as the decision is yours to make, it's your decision not mine, how did I then compell you if you had a choice?

By giving you a nasty alternative to your own initial choice? It's still a choice, yours and yours alone.

Coerced is not the same as compelled.

Brownie

 

[Graystar]

Coerced is not the same as compelled.

Coerce - to compel to an act or choice
© 2003 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

You *really* should check your assertions before you make them.

By giving you a nasty alternative to your own initial choice? It's still a choice, yours and yours alone.

That concept was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1897, almost 70 years before the Miranda ruling.

"Much of the confusion which has resulted from the effort to deduce from the adjudged cases what would be a sufficient quantum of proof to show that a confession was or was not voluntary, has arisen from a misconception of the subject to which the proof must address itself. The rule is not that in order to render a statement admissible the proof must be adequate to establish that the particular communications contained in a statement were voluntarily made, but it must be sufficient to establish that the making of the statement was voluntary; that is to say, that from the causes, which the law treats as legally sufficient to engender in the mind of the accused hope or fear in respect to the crime charged, the accused was not involuntarily impelled to make a statement, when but for the improper influences he would have remained silent. . . ." BRAM v. U S, 168 U.S. 532 (1897)

 

[brownie0486]

I'll coerce you if I can, that doesn't mean you are compelled to comply.

There is a difference. Never mind what the dictionary says. Thats only one example between the two.

You are never compelled [ forced ] by coercion, you succumb to the coercion. You may "feel" you were compelled butthats just a feeling.

You really should take a look at the real world.

Brownie

 

[Graystar]

I'll coerce you if I can, that doesn't mean you are compelled to comply.

Now you're just not making any sense.

 

[Graystar]

The case of murder at sea is BRAM v. U S, 168 U.S. 532 (1897)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=168&page=549

 

[brownie0486]

Lets see if this makes sense to you.

I can not be coerced to do anything I don't want to do unless I'm physically abused and even then I have the choice of death before you succeed in that coercion.

Course if I'm a duh and a half, you may be able to affect my mind enough to listen to the bull you are spewing. Knowing others need to be reminded of their right to remain silent cause they may not know better, we in the LE community give you, by law, your rights under Miranda.

Now we have told you, if you were listening, to shut up and ask for a lwayer. If you haven't enough brains to follow those instructions, well then, you are fair game.

Let the games begin. It's quite simple actually, you are not coerced or compelled to speak, if I can trick you into believing you should or that it is the right thing to do, working on a conscious level, well, I guess you were not smart enough to pay attention to the warnings I had just issued you relative your rights.

If that is the case, too bad for you. Whine all you want, I haven't broken any laws nro have I denied you your rights, in fact I informed you what your rights were and you didn't pay attention. Whose fault is that? Mine?

Not hardly.

Perhaps we should have signs made at the stations that say "little fish" and "big fish". If you clam up, you get the big fish sign hung on your neck so your atty knows you listened to your rights and exercised them. If you don't clam up and heed the warnings issued you, you get the little fish sign hung on your neck and your atty will know you were a dumb crap.

Oh, that brings up a good point as well. IF you EXERCISE your rights to keep your mouth shut, I can't be called a coercer. They are your rights, not mine, so you either exercise them or you don't.

Think the NVA coerced american POWs through mind control and physical discomfort? Why yes they did thankyou. Did the GI's fall for their tactics? Very few, they died as they would not cooperate or they lived with suffering. Nobody makes you talk unless they control your vocal cords. Show me the cop who can do that, and I'll listen to your accusations of such.

I, as an LEO, have an obligation to catch the BG's anyway I can within the letter of the law. You on the other hand as the BG do not have to speak at all, let alone confess, and you are informed of such prior to my actions.

You can go round and round all day back and forth, the fact remains I can play the games you don't like and feel are unjust. Course I can't play those games at all if you decide to be a "big fish" and keep your trap shut. Then I become impetent in my quest for the truth. You are not talking.

Brownie

 

[TheeBadOne]

I fear GS has his mind made up and is not open to the possibility of other options.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Scalia said everything I'd want to say, and far more persuasively than I could.


Today’s judgment converts Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching into the very Cheops’ Pyramid (or perhaps the Sphinx would be a better analogue) of judicial arrogance. In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today’s decision does not pretend that it is–and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people’s representatives in Congress.

 

[Graystar]

Lets see if this makes sense to you.

Yes, lets. So you're saying that if I beat you to near death, and you decide to say what I tell you to say in order to preserve your life, they you *deserve* to be convicted of a crime you didn't commit.

Is that correct? Truth means nothing? Is that what you're saying?

 

[brownie0486]

No, not at all.

I'm saying if you beat me near death, I may admit I did things when I don;t want to admit it.

If I didn't do anything, how you gonna make me say it. You mean you want me to lie to save my life? That scenario, if thats what this post is about is not what the cops do in this country.

Hope your long postings here are not accusing the cops of getting peole to say something untrue.

I was under the impression you were having a problem with their getting the truth from them by trickery. Your last question seems to indicate you may be attesting to the cops making people say things that are not true.

Doesn't happen here, but it happens in Iraq and other third world nations.

You can't be serious that you think the cops make people confess to crimes they didn't commit? If the person does that and has NOT been beat half to death, they get what they get don't they?

How are the courts then to believe them later when they recant. They have already shown themselves to be liars.

Guess that must be a catch 22 for them huh? You couldn't get me to admit to anything even if I did do what you thought I did, let alone for soemthing I didn't do.

Didn't that go out with segregation in the 60's in the deep south.

I won't be convicted in that sceanrio if you beat a confession out of me anyway. The judge would throw it out.

Brownie

Brownie

 

[pittspilot]

I guess you can say that. This isn’t about wordplay or mental exercises. This is about reality. You say protection of rights interferes with the determination of the truth. However, there are many examples where the protection of rights (that is, Miranda warnings) has contributed to “proving†a falsehood.

Please cite a single example, or hypothetical. I think you are using a hasty generalization to prove your point.

That is correct, and follows the method for which all our rights are protected. Just as our rights have no clear limitations, neither should the definition of restrictions upon those rights. Newly discovered ways to violates our rights should never be allowed just because they're not written in the book somewhere. This isn't contract law.

You seem to utterly disregard the problem of rights imposing on other rights. If we allow expansive rights of the accused, we naturally have to discount the rights of the victims. The two forms of rights are not in exact congruence. Thus we have to balance it out. You seem to believe that an absolutism will work, when clearly it cannot.

You can find that out easily by doing a little research on the subject.

This is somewhat insulting. I have not talked down to you, please refrain from doing the same. I do know the research methodologies for deriving original intent, although your argument that the derivation of original intent is easy, does not match my research experiences and those of my other colleagues.

You have the rulings that define the standard for compelled testimony. That’s what current society means.

So thusly, current societal norms are based on jurisprudential norms? I would be very careful making this assertion. It's something of a chicken or egg story. I personally think that jurisprudence should reflect societal norms, as advocated by the legislative branch, subject to strict abrogation when the legislative branch violates Constitutional norms.

Of course it does. That’s a silly question. What right has ever had a different application based on who you were??

Again, you expose yourself as an absolutist. Different people respond to authority in different ways. A 12 year old child, will respond very differently then a 38 year recidivist criminal. Thus, when the police are interacting with each, I expect a different standard of behavior, bounded by obvious requirements. This is plain common sense.

Of course not. Why would it? There’s no bases for such a query.

According to your logic then, the two gentleman who shot up Los Angeles deserve the same treatment as someone who who shoplifted. You may deny your ability to differentiate between the suspects, I do not. It this point, the wisest course is to defer to the police, with overall judicial supervision. Thus we are relying on the common sense of both the police and the judges, which in the end we have to do anyway. Because it defies a bright line rule.

Voluntary confessions are fine. The problem is with compelled confessions. We DON’T want those.

I believe that you are laboring under the assumption that the two types are easily differentiated. But what do we mean compelled? Should we allow Dru Sjodin's body to rot out in the wilderness, ensuring that her family spends a Christmas of despair beyond my ken, just so that convicted Rapist, Alfonso Rodriguez Jr, not be subjected to ANY small amount of coercion whatsoever? Remember, I am not talking about the rack, and I am not talking physical torture. I am talking about the police speaking to him in any way, shape, or form. I understand that he may be innocent, but the argument that his rights to not be subject to even rigorous questioning coming without social cost seems facile to me. So can you really tell me that if the police pulled a good cop bad cop on this guy, and found the body of Dru, that we would be lessened as a society? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that argument. We have gone too far in protecting the Rodriguez, and it is hurting the Dru Sjodin's of the world, and that makes our society a lesser one.

ALL forms.

See above for a critique of your absolutism.

 

[Graystar]

You can't be serious that you think the cops make people confess to crimes they didn't commit?

If that isn't obvious from my previous who-knows-how-many posts, then I don't know what to say. I can only refer you back to the two links I provided as a start on learning about the subject.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel1221.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/falseconfessions020925.html

However, that still isn't the primary point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that the existence of the Miranda warning takes the focus away from whether testimony has been compelled, and put it on whether a warning has been given. The Miranda warning provides nothing, while at the same time creating a situation that allows the innocent to go to jail, and the guilty to go free.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Origionally posted by Graystar:

I posed and answered that very question in my response.

I find it in poor taste to ask a question, not read the answer, and then ask the question again (for the third time now, I believe.)

However, if you don't want to do any work for your answer, I will give you the easy 4-step plan.

Step 1 - Arrest suspect and read him his rights.

Step 2 - Put a gun to suspect’s head and say, "If you don't confess I will kill you and say you attacked me and tried to go for my gun."

Step 3 - Immediately video tape suspect saying "I was read my rights. I did it."

Step 4 - Purport video confession as "case closed" evidence to compel suspect to write and sign a confession. Provide suspect with details of the crime for accuracy.

And there you go. Pretty simple. Of course, the suspect can decide not to confess. Too bad his tombstone won’t say anything about how he stuck to his principles and asserted his right to remain silent.

Cops will let details "slip out" when the camera is off, then record the suspect "mentioning details that only the perpetrator would know."

Cops will put witnesses and suspects in the same area. The witness will notice the suspect and might even be told that he was the guy arrested for the crime. Then, the witness picks the suspect out of a line up...not because he's the one that was seen, but because he's the one the witness saw in cuffs.

Cops know all about these techniques to fabricate evidence, as they've been fine-tuning them for over a century. These techniques amount to compelled testimony because the testimonies given are the result of improper influences.

Brownie, that's exactly what he's saying.

 

[Graystar]

Please cite a single example, or hypothetical. I think you are using a hasty generalization to prove your point.

Central Park Jogger case. The teens were convicted on nothing but their "confessions", which they recanted. I put confessions in quotes, because no teen actually admitted to being involved. Rather, they implicated the others. One teen didn’t confess at all. He was convicted, as they all were, on the testimony of the other teens.

If we allow expansive rights of the accused, we naturally have to discount the rights of the victims.

"Naturally"?? How does protecting one person’s rights injure another’s? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard. What about the rights of an innocent person?

This is somewhat insulting. I have not talked down to you, please refrain from doing the same.

I wasn't talking down to you. The question you ask could require a small book to answer, and is outside the scope of this discussion.

The issue posed, as the focus of this discussion was the fact that the Miranda warning requirement was created to secure the confessions obtained during interrogations.

The issue was NOT the definition of a compelled confession. That is not what is being discussed. The issue is how ANY confession is viewed because of Miranda.

There are cases of valid, completely voluntary confessions being thrown out because Miranda wasn’t given. There are cases of compelled confessions being upheld because Miranda WAS given. This is not the way it should be, and THAT is the point of this discussion.

The Miranda decision is wrong because it focuses on the wrong issue. Miranda’s conviction was not overturned because his confession was compelled, but because he didn’t know his rights. What then would have happened had the police given him a warning? It is possible that a suspect confession would have been held admissible. That is not the way it should be. The focus should be on the testimony, not whether the suspect knows his rights.

Again, you expose yourself as an absolutist. Different people respond to authority in different ways. A 12 year old child, will respond very differently then a 38 year recidivist criminal. Thus, when the police are interacting with each, I expect a different standard of behavior, bounded by obvious requirements. This is plain common sense.

And what does any of that have to do with your assertion...that *rights* are applied differently to different people? Everyone has the same rights.

According to your logic then, the two gentleman who shot up Los Angeles deserve the same treatment as someone who who shoplifted.

Why in the world would you treat them differently?? Are you saying that it's okay to beat one of them up because of the crime he is accused of?? What nonsense is that??

I believe that you are laboring under the assumption that the two types are easily differentiated.

No I'm not. I never said or implied as such. My only point have been that the focus has shifted away from that very distinction, to whether a Miranda warning was given.

 

[brownie0486]

Graystar:

Become a cop, deal with the slime of the earth, the poople who would kill or mame you or others any chance they have for a few years.

Change the system through your course of actions, have a positive influence on the people downtrodden by Miranda in your district.

As not all criminals are equal, why should they be treated equal? It's obvious you have never had to deal with murderers, rapists, bank robbers. Of course I'm going to treat them differently, they are different from the shop lifter thats 15 yrs old.

Theres a big difference between people who kill or hurt others and those who don't. Their mindset is different and I'll react in kind. If I treat them like the little old lady from Pasadena, I'll likely suffer injury or worse.

Brownie

 

[pittspilot]

Central Park Jogger case. The teens were convicted on nothing but their "confessions", which they recanted. I put confessions in quotes, because no teen actually admitted to being involved. Rather, they implicated the others. One teen didn’t confess at all. He was convicted, as they all were, on the testimony of the other teens.

So the exculpatory statements that each used in an attempt to get the others to take the rap is the same as a compelled statement?

That's not even a hasty generalization, it's simply a flawed analogy.

The point is that I do not think physically coerced confessions are common in this day and age.

"Naturally"?? How does protecting one person’s rights injure another’s? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard. What about the rights of an innocent person?"

I am interested that this concept is something you are not familar with.

Let us say that an accused, and guilty, man is released from custody on a 1st degree murder charge, due to problems with the admissibility of evidence on Constitutional grounds. This individual then goes out and kills again. Does not this action in protecting the rights of the accused, impede on the right of the victim to live a life without murderers. I do not know about you, but I believe that part of the social contract in our society is that the government will do its best to put away murderers.

Now, I am not saying that the accused do not have rights, I am merely asserting that the imposition of those rights has deliterious effects on society as a whole, and citizens as individuals. Thus, any discussion of rights of the accused has to keep this concept as central. The fact that you do not recognize this tension indicates that you will never be satisfied with a moderating approach, since you cannot appreciate the conflict properly.

I wasn't talking down to you. The question you ask could require a small book to answer, and is outside the scope of this discussion.

Actually you were. You have done so throughout our conversation. This was merely the worst example. I fully appreciate the difficulty of original intent research. Your comments suggested that if only I did a tad of research I would become educated to the difficulty. That is an insulting presumption. I have made no presumption of you, and instead confined myself to your comments here.

The issue posed, as the focus of this discussion was the fact that the Miranda warning requirement was created to secure the confessions obtained during interrogations.

To which I have disagreed. I believe that the Miranda doctrine was a creation of the Warren court based entirely on their belief that involuntary confessions were unconstitutional. I find it somewhat amusing that you are accusing one of the most liberal courts ever seen of creating a doctrine to protect the police. Unless you have new information that shows the Warren court as pro-police, I have to go with the abundant evidence I have thus been exposed to that indicates the opposite.

The issue was NOT the definition of a compelled confession. That is not what is being discussed. The issue is how ANY confession is viewed because of Miranda.

And Miranda goes to the voluntariness of the confession, which brings us back to the 5th Amendment compulsion clause. I believe that compulsion did not mean voluntary. It just meant compulsion as society determines compulsion. Determining that is problematic enough.

There are cases of valid, completely voluntary confessions being thrown out because Miranda wasn’t given. There are cases of compelled confessions being upheld because Miranda WAS given. This is not the way it should be, and THAT is the point of this discussion.

Miranda dissipates an intitial presumption of involuntariness. Unless the warning are given, the confession is presumed compelled. This does not mean 5th Amendment voluntariness will not be explored at trial by defense counsel. Miranda did not supplant this analysis, it is still open to explore the compulsion of the confession on a totality of circumstances test. Thus, I am not sure what your point is

The Miranda decision is wrong because it focuses on the wrong issue. Miranda’s conviction was not overturned because his confession was compelled, but because he didn’t know his rights. What then would have happened had the police given him a warning? It is possible that a suspect confession would have been held admissible. That is not the way it should be. The focus should be on the testimony, not whether the suspect knows his rights.

And right back we come to voluntariness again.

If someone is cognizant of his Consitutional rights, then it is presumed that any statements are voluntary, since the person knows he has the right to remain silent.

An interesting question is whether the warning is still necessary since it is apparent that everyone, almost to a person is aware of the Miranda warning.

In any event, I do not see how you can get to your analysis in a vacuum. In order to determine the voluntariness of any statement, it is neccesary for the court to determine the extent of the defendants knowledge of his rights. Thus, I as a law student, who has taken a number of Criminal Procedure courses, would be held to a higher standard then someone who did not have this knowledge.

And what does any of that have to do with your assertion...that *rights* are applied differently to different people? Everyone has the same rights.

Is that so? A felon is treated different from a non-felon. A child is treated differently from a non-child. A person in a highly regulated industry is treated differently from someone in a non-regulated industry. While rights have the same abstract force, in practical application, they tend to differ. It is the price of applying an abstraction to the concrete.

Why in the world would you treat them differently?? Are you saying that it's okay to beat one of them up because of the crime he is accused of?? What nonsense is that??

Notice that at no point of the discussion have I advocated physical coercion as an interrogation technique. Thus your statement has the indicia of a strawman technique. As a result your argument is flawed.

Let me be clear. Physical coercion should be barred because it is against cultural norms, it is unreliable, and it is wrong, period. That is not my argument. When the line becomes tricky is psychological coercion. It is not at all clear that all psychological coercion is inherently wrong, although naturally there are plenty of example of this type that would be beyond the pale. I do not feel like enumerating them all, and trust to your common sense not to use a strawman in an attempt to discount this argument

No I'm not. I never said or implied as such. My only point have been that the focus has shifted away from that very distinction, to whether a Miranda warning was given.

You stated

"Voluntary confessions are fine. The problem is with compelled confessions. We DON’T want those."

This clearly infers that you see a distinction between compelled and voluntary confessions. This is a clear implication from that statement. On the one hand, voluntary confessions, and on the other compelled confessions.

As I stated before, I do not believe that this distinction is as easily made as you make it out to be. I think that we all agree that physical coercion is to be excluded. You will find very few people that wish to include confession of this variety. However, pyschological coercion creates problems that are not as easily dispelled. Do you wish to exclude confession that have any color of psychcological coercion, regardless of how slight? If so, I disagree with you. The amount of psychological coercion reasonable in any situation is open to debate, of course, but are you willing to countenance any?

As far as the fact that the distinction has been forgotten, I must respectfully disagree. The issue of how to regulate psychological coercion is very much alive and well in the criminal justice system.

 

[Graystar]

Become a cop, deal with the slime of the earth, the poople who would kill or mame you or others any chance they have for a few years.

Yes, you're absolutely right. You should be allowed to violate *my* rights because *you* are fed up with dealing with slime. That's exactly the way things should be.

 

[Graystar]

So the exculpatory statements that each used in an attempt to get the others to take the rap is the same as a compelled statement? That's not even a hasty generalization, it's simply a flawed analogy.

Oh really. Maybe you should read BRAM v. U S, 168 U.S. 532 (1897) before you answer that question on a test.

Let us say that an accused, and guilty, man is released from custody on a 1st degree murder charge, due to problems with the admissibility of evidence on Constitutional grounds. This individual then goes out and kills again. Does not this action in protecting the rights of the accused, impede on the right of the victim to live a life without murderers. I do not know about you, but I believe that part of the social contract in our society is that the government will do its best to put away murderers.

Where do you get this stuff? Are you saying that putting an innocent person in jail is preferable to letting a guilty person go? That ridiculous! First of all, please tell me how you know with such certainty that those being let go, without due process having occurred, are guilty. Second, depriving an innocent person of their liberty is just as repugnant an act as any criminal act perpetrated on an individual. Both are victims. There is absolutely no basis in law to prefer one over the other.

I believe that the Miranda doctrine was a creation of the Warren court based entirely on their belief that involuntary confessions were unconstitutional.

I would wager that you'd be unable to describe the mechanism of that protection. That is, please tell me how informing a person of their right to voluntarily remain silent protects him from involuntarily speaking. This idea that the Miranda warning provides protection against compelled speech is an oxymoron. A person cannot prevent an involuntary act no matter how many warnings are given to him.

Even if the air was poison, and I was warned, I couldn’t keep myself from breathing.

Is that so? A felon is treated different from a non-felon. A child is treated differently from a non-child. A person in a highly regulated industry is treated differently from someone in a non-regulated industry. While rights have the same abstract force, in practical application, they tend to differ. It is the price of applying an abstraction to the concrete.

We are not talking about all treatment. You said that rights are applied differently. I want an example of a right being applied differently because to different people.

It is not at all clear that all psychological coercion is inherently wrong

It *IS* clear that all psychological coercion is wrong! Physical or psychological, coercion is wrong. There is definitely a question of what constitutes psychological coercion. I certainly don’t have an answer for that and I feel that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. But there’s no question that if the behavior is found to be coercive, then the validity of the statement is in question.

This clearly infers that you see a distinction between compelled and voluntary confessions. This is a clear implication from that statement. On the one hand, voluntary confessions, and on the other compelled confessions.

I don't even think you have to infer it. It's stated!

As I stated before, I do not believe that this distinction is as easily made as you make it out to be.

That's because I haven't attempted any distinctions. I know there are voluntary confessions. I know there are compelled confessions. However, I made no statement as to how the nature of a confession should be determined. It is not up to me to make that distinction. That's up to a court and jury, and I never said it was an easy thing to do.

All I have said is that the existence of the Miranda warning has shifted the responsibly, of protecting the individual right against compelled self-incrimination, from the state to the individual; and that the giving of a Miranda warning serves to secure any statement made by the accused (just like the Supreme Court said); and that the giving of a Miranda warning makes it much harder to claim compulsion, when it fact the warning, as a notice of what can be voluntarily done, has nothing to do with what was done involuntarily.

This is not now, nor has it ever been, a discussion as to the nature of testimony. If you want to talk about how testimony is compelled, or where the lines should be drawn on psychological techniques, or whether physical compulsion exist, or anything like that then it would be better to start another thread because those issues are not being discussed here. I placed the above assertions on the table, and that’s what we’ve been discussing.

 

[brownie0486]

The breathing part is okay, it's the talking you are having a problem with here. And does mentioning being gased mean you think americans are gassed into confessions through coercion? If not, that statement is out in left field somewhere and has no business being used as an example.

Did I mention violating ones rights by dealing with slime differently than a shoplifter? They both get arrested. They both get miranda. They both get to shut up if they choose or spill their guts.

Who do you think I want the information from most? Who do you think will be the hardest of the two in attitude, feelings toward hurting others intentionally on a physical plane?

Which one is more a danger to society as a whole? Which one is more likely to commit more violent crimes against society? Which one is more dangerous to me while arrestig him, all in a general sense mind you as there are always exceptions. Why of course, it's the murderer.

Knowing this, I can't treat him as more dangerous to others and myself accordingly? That may border on my being found guilty of non-feasance or perhaps misfeasance or negligence if I do not take the precautions necessary to protect other prisoners, myself, the people in the station and the booking officer.

My comment which elicited your accusing me of violating someones rights obviously sent you only in the direction you wanted to take to make some point. One can only guess at your thoughts about LE in general through your posts. You'd be very fortunate to get me as the arresting officer, I'm by the book with some common sense thrown in when I have someone who warrants special attention based on the nature of the crime and his criminal history.

Seems as though you don't agree with the laws, like I said before, become a cop and find out for yourself what one needs to be able to do to survive on the streets.

Ever been shot at protecting the public from the sss of the world. Ever seen dead bodies brutalized by another human? Think I'm going to be in the same frame of mind with the perps who commit these crimes as the 15 yrs old kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar?

Of course I treat people differently, what?, you think I'm a robot, data from star trek? I can certainly treat people differently without violating their rights.


Brownie

 

[pittspilot]

Last chance, since this is really going around in circles

Oh really. Maybe you should read BRAM v. U S, 168 U.S. 532 (1897) before you answer that question on a test.

The thing I asked for was a single post Miranda case wherein an compelled confession was allowed in using the Miranda warnings as shield. You gave me something else.

Where do you get this stuff? Are you saying that putting an innocent person in jail is preferable to letting a guilty person go? That ridiculous! First of all, please tell me how you know with such certainty that those being let go, without due process having occurred, are guilty. Second, depriving an innocent person of their liberty is just as repugnant an act as any criminal act perpetrated on an individual. Both are victims. There is absolutely no basis in law to prefer one over the other.

Again, you simplify my argument to logical absurdity. It is not at all ridiculous to think that it would be better that an innocent shoplifter go to jail, then a murderer go free. However, our choice is not that concrete. The structures you implement to protect the innocent will be used to great affect by the guilty. Thus, the more you protect the innocent, the more guilty go free. I am not sure how you can dispute this principle. Now, I am not saying that I want innocent people to go to jail to get all the guilty folk, but I do think that the pendulam has swung in a direction towards freeing the guilty. It was worse a decade or so ago, and the repercussions of this phenomena led to the rise of the various politically powerful victims rights groups, and things such as 3 strikes laws.

However, my point is that it is useless to discuss this issue with you if you will not subscribe to this notion. You seem to think that we can ensure that all the innocents can be protected with zero societal cost. I disagree. The question of where we draw the line is one upon which reasonable people can disagree, since there seem to be no clear answers.

I wager that you'd be unable to describe the mechanism of that protection. That is, please tell me how informing a person of their right to voluntarily remain silent protects him from involuntarily speaking. This idea that the Miranda warning provides protection against compelled speech is an oxymoron. A person cannot prevent an involuntary act no matter how many warnings are given to him.

Even if the air was poison, and I was warned, I couldn’t keep myself from breathing.

And I wager that you think you can. Which would be curious since the institution that created the Miranda Doctrine has had more then a little difficulty explicating it. I am no defender of Miranda. It was, and is an ineffective prophylactic device for 5th Amendment protection. Actually Dickerson subtlely changed the idea of prophylactic protection, so what Miranda means at this point is anyone's guess.

However, this again illuminates why a discussion with you is bound to end in futility. You have a problem remaining within the scope of the discussion.

My response that you quoted was due to this statement

"The issue posed, as the focus of this discussion was the fact that the Miranda warning requirement was created to secure the confessions obtained during interrogations."

Thus, you are arguing that Miranda was created by the Warren Court as a vehicle to circumnavigate requirements that confession be voluntary. If you truly believe such a thing, then your information about the ideology of the Warren court is markedly different from my own.

This your answer to mine about mechanisms and such forth is beside the point. I have never come here as a defender of Miranda. I merely point out that your critique comes from a strange direction.

We are not talking about all treatment. You said that rights are applied differently. I want an example of a right being applied differently because to different people.

Well apparently if you are not in the media, and are instead the NRA, you are circumscribed from political speech for a period prior to an election.

Property is a right. Taxes were allowed Consitutionally. Wealthier people pay more in taxes, then lower income people. Thus their property rights are more infringed.

2nd Amendment rights are infringed according mental status, criminal background, and age.

I could go on.

It *IS* clear that all psychological coercion is wrong! Physical or psychological, coercion is wrong. There is definitely a question of what constitutes psychological coercion. I certainly don’t have an answer for that and I feel that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. But there’s no question that if the behavior is found to be coercive, then the validity of the statement is in question.

But shouldn't it be a two pronged analysis? The level of coercion v the self-will of the suspect? Wouldn't something that would be highly coercive to a mild mannered youth be nothing of the sort to a hardened criminal? This is what I am arguing. However, I am going a step forward. I think some coercive techniques are not necessarily the same as compelled testimony.

That's because I haven't attempted any distinctions. I know there are voluntary confessions. I know there are compelled confessions. However, I made no statement as to how the nature of a confession should be determined. It is not up to me to make that distinction. That's up to a court and jury, and I never said it was an easy thing to do.

All I have said is that the existence of the Miranda warning has shifted the responsibly, of protecting the individual right against compelled self-incrimination, from the state to the individual; and that the giving of a Miranda warning serves to secure any statement made by the accused (just like the Supreme Court said); and that the giving of a Miranda warning makes it much harder to claim compulsion, when it fact the warning, as a notice of what can be voluntarily done, has nothing to do with what was done involuntarily.

This is not now, nor has it ever been, a discussion as to the nature of testimony. If you want to talk about how testimony is compelled, or where the lines should be drawn on psychological techniques, or whether physical compulsion exist, or anything like that then it would be better to start another thread because those issues are not being discussed here. I placed the above assertions on the table, and that’s what we’ve been discussing.

Your initial assertion was the following.

"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."

My problem is that you blithely suggest this as if it has never been thought of, and then dismiss any objections out of hand without dealing with the problems your suggestions creates.

1) You realize that this suggestion would bring confessions to a screeching halt. You also realize that many guilty people would go free. These people would then be free to commit other crimes. I have made this assertion a number of times, and your rejoinder has simply been to question my common sense. If you think this is not a concern, then I question your common sense. Your suggestion has a social cost, one that is quite high, and it is your job to show us how that cost is worth it.

2) You also realize that this suggestion would be an employment act for lawyers. How do you propose to pay for this?

We can agree to disagree, but your tactic of debate is to declare the case closed at the first reply when it is clear that this is far from the case.

 

[TheeBadOne]

pittspilot

 

[CaesarI]

Innocent! until proven Guilty.

Nobody makes you talk unless they control your vocal cords. Show me the cop who can do that, and I'll listen to your accusations of such.

Most people consider being threatened with your life being "made" or "forced" to talk.

Doesn't happen here, but it happens in Iraq and other third world nations.

Of course it happens here. Not as often surely, but it happens.

You can't be serious that you think the cops make people confess to crimes they didn't commit? If the person does that and has NOT been beat half to death, they get what they get don't they?

This is a very dangeorus view. You state tha tpeople will not confess to crimes they didn't commit unless they have been beaten half to death. Not everyone is that tough, in fact most people are cowards.

As not all criminals are equal, why should they be treated equal? It's obvious you have never had to deal with murderers, rapists, bank robbers. Of course I'm going to treat them differently, they are different from the shop lifter thats 15 yrs old.

I take exception to this. By making this statement you are implicitly assuming that the accused criminal you are dealing with is a convicted criminal. Always keep that in mind, one day you might arrest me for murder when it was really self defense, and I really don't want to be treated like a murderer.

Did I mention violating ones rights by dealing with slime differently than a shoplifter? They both get arrested. They both get miranda. They both get to shut up if they choose or spill their guts.

A further example of your psychology. You are failing to assume innocence.

Who do you think I want the information from most? Who do you think will be the hardest of the two in attitude, feelings toward hurting others intentionally on a physical plane?

If I knew someone was guilty of rape, I'd work very hard to get information out of them. If I only knew they were accused of rape, I would not work as hard, I would really, really HATE to convict an innocent man. Mostly because I've seen a man wrongly convicted of sexual assault, precisely because a member of the jury did not assume innocence. Why didn't he assume innocence? Because he as a former prosecutor who knew from years of prosecuting this "scum" that he was guilty.

Arrested people are still citizens with full rights and priviledges of INNOCENT citizens until such time as they are proven guilty by a court of law. Do not treat them as criminals, treat them as if they are innocent, no matter what the evidence that you think you have against them. This is the proper manner for LEOs to behave. It is also the best way for them to behave, because in general it is very hard for them to be objective, due to their having to deal with "scum" all day. Believe me I appreciate it, and view it as a very valuable function (more valuable than the pay-scale would indicate), however, if I want an objective opinion on how reliable a computer system is I don't ask the tech support guy who has to deal with the crap all day, I ask the average user.

"Gosh I'm sorry I gotta arrest you, but given the circumstances, that's what I gotta do. I'm sure it's all just a big misunderstanding. You'll get a speedy trial, and have a right to keep your mouth shut which you'd be well advised to exercise on account of I really don't want you to say something that you didn't mean, cause it might be used against you in a court of law."

-Morgan

 

[CaesarI]

You realize that this suggestion would bring confessions to a screeching halt. You also realize that many guilty people would go free. These people would then be free to commit other crimes.

Statistics:
Let's say that we have system A and system B.
In system A:
If you are guilty you have a 90% chance of being found guilty and thrown in jail.
If you are innocent, you have a 90% chance of being found innocent and set free.
In system B:
If you are guilty you have a 60% chance of being found guilty and thrown in jail.
If you are innocent, you have a 99.99% chance of being found innocent and set free.

(you can try varying degrees, for a 99% chance of freeing the innocent, allow an 80% chance of imprisoning the guilty, 99.9% : 70%)

In both systems we submit 10,000 innocent people into the system, and 10,000 guilty people.
In system A :
9,000 criminals are locked up.
1,000 innocent men are thrown in jail.
in system B:
6,000 criminals are locked up.
1 innocent man are thrown in jail.

Now, the 1000 free criminals in system A are quite a bit more likely to commit another crime yes? Well the second time around 900 of them are in prison, and 100 are set free. The third time around only 10 remain, and the 4th time around only 1 is set free, and the 5th time around he's locked up (prolly).

The 4000 free criminals in system B are also quite a bit more likely to commit another crime (perhaps more so cause they think they'll get off)
Trial 2: 2400 locked up. 1600 free
Trial 3: 960 locked up 640 free
Trial 4: 384 locked up 256 free
Trial 5: 154 locked up 102 free *
Trial 6: 61 locked up 41 free *
Trial 7: 25 locked up 16 free *
Trial 8: 9 Locked up 7 free *
Trial 9: 4 locked up 3 free *
Trial 10: 2 locked up 1 free *
Trial 11: 1 locked up (prolly)
* = rounding.

It only takes twice as long to "get'em all" in system B. By Trial #2 almost as many are caught as were caught in system A. If a criminal commits a crime 3 times he has a 93.6% chance of getting caught.

Now... looking at the 2 systems. In a prison population, what are the odds that a man in each is actually guilty of the crime of which he is accused?
In system A: 10% of the prison population is comprised of innocent men.
In system B: .01% of the prison population is comprised of innocent men.

What are the costs and benefits? You're talking about imprisoning innocent men and weighing costs and benefits? How about it's immoral, as horribly wrongly immoral as locking a person up, denying them their freedom(!!), costing them significantly financially (imprisoned men cannot run their businesses), ruining the lives of their wives and children etc. You make the world less safe for innocent men.

As opposed to releasing guilty men, which may make our world less safe for victims of crime.
"The person who has... nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

What are the costs and benefits? The cost is injustice. The benefit is non-existant. While I reduce the chance of a criminal not being imprisoned for his crime I increase the chance that I will be imprisoned for his crime. Unfortunately I don't think most people can understand the horror of being imprisoned for a crime they did not commit until they are actually faced with it. This is a shame.

-Morgan

 

[pittspilot]

First, a long and very interesting article on coercion.

Not exactly on topic, but close enough.

Statistics:
Let's say that we have system A and system B.
In system A:
If you are guilty you have a 90% chance of being found guilty and thrown in jail.
If you are innocent, you have a 90% chance of being found innocent and set free.
In system B:
If you are guilty you have a 60% chance of being found guilty and thrown in jail.
If you are innocent, you have a 99.99% chance of being found innocent and set free.

(you can try varying degrees, for a 99% chance of freeing the innocent, allow an 80% chance of imprisoning the guilty, 99.9% : 70%)

In both systems we submit 10,000 innocent people into the system, and 10,000 guilty people.
In system A :
9,000 criminals are locked up.
1,000 innocent men are thrown in jail.
in system B:
6,000 criminals are locked up.
1 innocent man are thrown in jail.

Now, the 1000 free criminals in system A are quite a bit more likely to commit another crime yes? Well the second time around 900 of them are in prison, and 100 are set free. The third time around only 10 remain, and the 4th time around only 1 is set free, and the 5th time around he's locked up (prolly).

The 4000 free criminals in system B are also quite a bit more likely to commit another crime (perhaps more so cause they think they'll get off)
Trial 2: 2400 locked up. 1600 free
Trial 3: 960 locked up 640 free
Trial 4: 384 locked up 256 free
Trial 5: 154 locked up 102 free *
Trial 6: 61 locked up 41 free *
Trial 7: 25 locked up 16 free *
Trial 8: 9 Locked up 7 free *
Trial 9: 4 locked up 3 free *
Trial 10: 2 locked up 1 free *
Trial 11: 1 locked up (prolly)
* = rounding.

It only takes twice as long to "get'em all" in system B. By Trial #2 almost as many are caught as were caught in system A. If a criminal commits a crime 3 times he has a 93.6% chance of getting caught.

Two things.

1) I don't believe that it will ever be possible to even remotely quantify what percentage of people found not guilty, are truly not guilty. Thus your statistical proof is immediately suspect.

2) You have a closed system. We have millions of people. Not only that, these millions of people move through the system according to age. It is well known that the biggest criminal offenders are young men, a demographic which is constantly changing, and has people being added and subtracted from it all the time. Your control group just will not work

"What are the costs and benefits? You're talking about imprisoning innocent men and weighing costs and benefits? How about it's immoral, as horribly wrongly immoral as locking a person up, denying them their freedom(!!), costing them significantly financially (imprisoned men cannot run their businesses), ruining the lives of their wives and children etc. You make the world less safe for innocent men.

I have to weigh costs and benefits. It is not an ideal world. I cannot ensure that no innocent man go to jail unless I am willing to pay another price. That price is the setting free of many guilty people. people who are rapists, murderers, robbers, and thieves. They will strike again. They will kill children, and murder and rape young girls.

You pretend that you can have the one without the other, I do not. The imprisonment of an innocent man is a very poignant thing, (I enjoyed Shawshank Redemption) and is something to be avoided if possible. However, in a flawed system there are costs. And the question is simply this. How many guilty men are you willing to allow to go free, to save that single innocent man? I do not believe that it is a one to one ratio. I am quite certain that the devices used to protect the innocent free far more guilty parties then they free innocent people. It's an honest question. As I said before, reasonable people can and should differ on this very difficult question, but to argue that the cost is not there is not mature.

As opposed to releasing guilty men, which may make our world less safe for victims of crime.
"The person who has... nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

What are the costs and benefits? The cost is injustice. The benefit is non-existant. While I reduce the chance of a criminal not being imprisoned for his crime I increase the chance that I will be imprisoned for his crime. Unfortunately I don't think most people can understand the horror of being imprisoned for a crime they did not commit until they are actually faced with it. This is a shame.

Have you ever looked at a Megan's law CD?

I have a young daughter, so I must. When I look at the names and faces living in amongst me, and know conclusively that there are those that have been released on a "technicality" I know that there is a cost. You assert that there is no benefit. I assert that reducing the protections of criminals, will but those predators behind bars.