Miranda – You probably don’t know what you’re talking about!
- Thread starter Graystar
- Start date
- Status
Ryder
Member
pittspilot - Great article on coersion. Thanks for the read. Learned a few things, experienced others. Much truth there.
Graystar
Member
And I gave you one. Then you made an assertion to the affect that exculpatory statements are not compelled. I then gave you the ruling that proves you wrong. Not only that, if you had read the Miranda ruling you’d see that neither exculpatory nor inculpatory statements could be used without the use of the warning.
Here’s a link to a few others examples of the type you’re looking for.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/falseconfessions020925.html
That's twice you've made this statement without explaining it. Please explain how this is possible.
What kind of a nonsensical statement is that??? Why would I say I can explain a concept that I have just accused of being contradictory and without reason?? You're not making any sense!! :banghead:
No, it should not be any kind of analysis because that's not within the scope of this discussion. In two very recent posts, one a response to your posting, I clearly described the scope of this discussion. This discussion is not about what constitutes a compelled confession. That is an area that you continually attempt to draw me into. It is you who cannot remain within the scope of the discussion. You continue to circumvent the issue, introduce irrelevancies, and use dubious “logical progressions†to simply discount points made. You’re going to be a great lawyer.
pittspilot
Member
None of those examples go to the heart of your issue, which using a quote of yours is:
Let me use this quote to make my point, a final time.
I have stated before that:
To which you replied:
If we place a lawyer in every questioning, then we ensure silence on the part of every suspect. That means that the police will get no statements, whatsoever, because no lawyer in his right mind will let his cleint say anything at all. Thus information that police get now, will be sharply curtailed. Less information cannot be good for law enforcement purposes, and in fact ensures that more people get away with crime.
Look let me go back to your statement above:
Your right to remain silent, and your right to an attorney are an impediment to efficient investigation of a criminal matter. Thus, there is a victim in the criminal matter that will not get justice. The job of police is to solve crime. Their job is also to uphold your rights, but the two functions are at odds. And the more rights we put into place to protect the rights of police, the more impediments to efficiently solving crime. It's not the cops want to violate rights, it's just that those rights get in the way of their job. Ask any cop.
Do you understand now?
No more nonsensical then "
Thus you infer that you can explain the mechanism of protection, other wise you are asking me to explain the unexplainable. However, there are a number of explanations of the mechanism, the most authoritative being the opinions that buttress and expand Miranda. None of which I find particularly convincing.
Way to end your statement there. You do understand that people reading your argument will understand that your unsubtle ad hominum is a leading indicator of the weakness of your argument.
This discussion is about:
Why?
Because:
Your right, via the 5th Amendment is not to have a statement compelled from you. Any discussion of this matter, must contain at its very heart, what this really means. Does it include voluntary? Does it mean physical and psychological compulsion? What type of techniques are we going to use to protect this right?
You seem to want to skip this part because it undermines your argument. Now I am sure that you will merely drag around another circle, which is not something that I want to do for one real reason. Your last ad hominem indicates that you are unable to debate respectfully. Taking a personal cheap shot like that is not appreciated in polite company, and it is definitely not taking the high road. It also indicates to me that I am wasting my time with you. I primarily wrote for the people who are reading along with us, but I feel they understand my point, while you never will.
Naturally.
Graystar
Member
You're making presumptions with no basis in fact. A lawyer will advise his client based on the evidence.
That is another presumption that you make that I do not agree with.
You sure do like to infer a lot. But as is the case with most inferences, your inference is wrong. My statement could also mean that such a mechanism defies description. So which is it? What did my statement really mean? Is it your meaning, or my meaning? If you give my words your meaning, then you are referring to a statement I never made. The Supreme Court has held that if you now present that statement, with that meaning, to a court then you have submitted compelled testimony.
My words carry my meaning. Not yours.
Yes I know.
Again, you're making presumptions. This discussion is not about the 5th Amendment or the nature of compelled confessions. It is about how the treatment of testimony has changed because of the Miranda ruling. It is about the shift in responsibility from the state to the accused, to protect against compelled testimony. It has nothing to do with how confessions are compelled.
brownie0486
Member
A lawyer will advice his client to say nothing at all times. Not advise him based on evidence as you state.
There is hardly ever any evidence worth noting until forensics gets through and the reports are written, thats long down the road and certainly not availble to him at the booking room or holding cell.
That doesn't wash as an answer here.
During the arrest, what evidence will the atty advise from? That he was arrested for a crime and "clients" own statements to him in private.
It was held that the state had an obligation to inform you of your rights as the accused rights were not known to many being arrested and consequently the system was deemed abusive and unfair to the arrestee.
Before Miranda, the arrested were responsible for their comments, now it is the states job to "teach" them their rights before they are responsible for their own actions.
When you taking the police exam?
Brownie
There is hardly ever any evidence worth noting until forensics gets through and the reports are written, thats long down the road and certainly not availble to him at the booking room or holding cell.
That doesn't wash as an answer here.
During the arrest, what evidence will the atty advise from? That he was arrested for a crime and "clients" own statements to him in private.
It was held that the state had an obligation to inform you of your rights as the accused rights were not known to many being arrested and consequently the system was deemed abusive and unfair to the arrestee.
Before Miranda, the arrested were responsible for their comments, now it is the states job to "teach" them their rights before they are responsible for their own actions.
When you taking the police exam?
Brownie
Starpower
Member
Miranda
Go to Politically Incorrect, SKS Parts, and read the link by a Senior Police Officer. ID yourself, then SHUT YOUR MOUTH!! The burden of proof, in every court, in every state, is on the State. When they say "anything you say" they mean it. When you are talking to the police, you ARE talking to the court, and it "will be used against you in a court of law". Often times, they will not be able to prove anything without your help, so don't voluntarily stand up on the gallows and helpfully stick your neck out so they can slip the noose on easier.!! I'm reminded of the story of the poor Jewish couple being herded into the gas camber at Auschwitz, naked and shivering, and the wife told the husband to ask where they were going, and he said "No, we might make them mad!" Yes, I am LEO, but I believe in the rights of the individual, even at the risk of missing the guilty rather than persecuting the innocent or just justifying the numbers. And all in all, our system is not perfect, but it's the best we have, and better than anywhere else, and in theory I believe in the system. I believe in it enough that if I'm ever accused, my lips are sealed!!
Go to Politically Incorrect, SKS Parts, and read the link by a Senior Police Officer. ID yourself, then SHUT YOUR MOUTH!! The burden of proof, in every court, in every state, is on the State. When they say "anything you say" they mean it. When you are talking to the police, you ARE talking to the court, and it "will be used against you in a court of law". Often times, they will not be able to prove anything without your help, so don't voluntarily stand up on the gallows and helpfully stick your neck out so they can slip the noose on easier.!! I'm reminded of the story of the poor Jewish couple being herded into the gas camber at Auschwitz, naked and shivering, and the wife told the husband to ask where they were going, and he said "No, we might make them mad!" Yes, I am LEO, but I believe in the rights of the individual, even at the risk of missing the guilty rather than persecuting the innocent or just justifying the numbers. And all in all, our system is not perfect, but it's the best we have, and better than anywhere else, and in theory I believe in the system. I believe in it enough that if I'm ever accused, my lips are sealed!!
Graystar
Member
You're speaking as if every person is arrested 5 minutes after the crime is committed. That is hardly the case. And, it's getting away from the issue at hand.
brownie0486
Member
It certainly does wash
when they are caught, they get to talk to an atty: without speaking if they so choose after Miranda.
In fact, crimes of importance [ ones that took place in the past, recent or otherwise ] will be scrutinized by the brass and press quite a bit. With a case as important as capital murder, arson resulting in deaths, etc there will be no mistakes in violating the accuseds rights.
Even when forensics has ID'd the perp [ is there a question of guilt left or are we then just going through the motions of a trial? ] and he or she is caught years later. The case beign solid forensically will also lead to everyone making sure there are no mistakes that can jeopardize the case.
Thats not relevant to Miranda? and the importance it plays in major cases?
The more high profile, whether due to a manhunt taking months or years bringing the press into it, locally reported where the people immediately involved in the case are aware of the events that will unfold with the arrrest, or any other number of scenarios, the more my rights will be protected so I can't bite em in the sss on appeal or have it thrown out to begin with.
All the heightened actions of DA's, Feds, local PD's, etc above will start with the mirandization of the accused. And if they are mirandized and do not wait for an atty or refuse the offer of free council before making any statements they are fair game if they open their mouth and blab their guts out.
Doesn't matter if I verbally make him feel bad to get that result or not. HE, and HE alone chose to refuse council, talk to the PO's and obviously is not smart, or he would have shut up.
There are a lot of twists and turns in the this, hard to follow but enlightening in ways. What I get from your posts is that you think the cops violate someones rights if they don't mirandize and immediately seclude them until an atty can be appointed and talk to the suspect/arrested.
That Miranda doesn't protect the accused, it protects the state. Can't it protect both at the same time?
For example, I verbally warn you to not lean over the ledge as a wilderness guide. I'm protecting you from harm by warning you to be careful not to harm yourself [ as in harmed if your rights are violated ].
Do you benefit from the warning? Sure, the benifit is you do not fall off the cliff.
Do I benefit at the same time by my verbal warning? Sure, the benefit is that if you ignore my warnings and go fall off the cliff, I was not negligent in letting you know the peril you presently faced and the consequences of your actions based on either of your decisions.
So, I ask you, the state protected your rights to know your rights before questioning or you couldn't be held accountable as you didn't know your options. Thats a pretty good benefit of the american justice system, I get to know I can shut up or spill my guts, pretty good. I think I'll shut up.
Or I can spill my guts, confess before god and beg for forgiveness after miranda. Then after talking to an atty later I recant and question my rights being violated. The state falls back on miranda. Was it adhered to. Is it confession valid because miranda was good. If it was adhered to, your confession probably stands and you do not get to use the system to get off with a lesser charge or off completely on some techincality where miranda was concerned anyway.
There, you see, the state and the suspect/accused get to benefit. When you give somethign up, you also gain something. You just have to know where to look.
Brownie
Brownie
when they are caught, they get to talk to an atty: without speaking if they so choose after Miranda.
In fact, crimes of importance [ ones that took place in the past, recent or otherwise ] will be scrutinized by the brass and press quite a bit. With a case as important as capital murder, arson resulting in deaths, etc there will be no mistakes in violating the accuseds rights.
Even when forensics has ID'd the perp [ is there a question of guilt left or are we then just going through the motions of a trial? ] and he or she is caught years later. The case beign solid forensically will also lead to everyone making sure there are no mistakes that can jeopardize the case.
Thats not relevant to Miranda? and the importance it plays in major cases?
The more high profile, whether due to a manhunt taking months or years bringing the press into it, locally reported where the people immediately involved in the case are aware of the events that will unfold with the arrrest, or any other number of scenarios, the more my rights will be protected so I can't bite em in the sss on appeal or have it thrown out to begin with.
All the heightened actions of DA's, Feds, local PD's, etc above will start with the mirandization of the accused. And if they are mirandized and do not wait for an atty or refuse the offer of free council before making any statements they are fair game if they open their mouth and blab their guts out.
Doesn't matter if I verbally make him feel bad to get that result or not. HE, and HE alone chose to refuse council, talk to the PO's and obviously is not smart, or he would have shut up.
There are a lot of twists and turns in the this, hard to follow but enlightening in ways. What I get from your posts is that you think the cops violate someones rights if they don't mirandize and immediately seclude them until an atty can be appointed and talk to the suspect/arrested.
That Miranda doesn't protect the accused, it protects the state. Can't it protect both at the same time?
For example, I verbally warn you to not lean over the ledge as a wilderness guide. I'm protecting you from harm by warning you to be careful not to harm yourself [ as in harmed if your rights are violated ].
Do you benefit from the warning? Sure, the benifit is you do not fall off the cliff.
Do I benefit at the same time by my verbal warning? Sure, the benefit is that if you ignore my warnings and go fall off the cliff, I was not negligent in letting you know the peril you presently faced and the consequences of your actions based on either of your decisions.
So, I ask you, the state protected your rights to know your rights before questioning or you couldn't be held accountable as you didn't know your options. Thats a pretty good benefit of the american justice system, I get to know I can shut up or spill my guts, pretty good. I think I'll shut up.
Or I can spill my guts, confess before god and beg for forgiveness after miranda. Then after talking to an atty later I recant and question my rights being violated. The state falls back on miranda. Was it adhered to. Is it confession valid because miranda was good. If it was adhered to, your confession probably stands and you do not get to use the system to get off with a lesser charge or off completely on some techincality where miranda was concerned anyway.
There, you see, the state and the suspect/accused get to benefit. When you give somethign up, you also gain something. You just have to know where to look.
Brownie
Brownie
Trade Offs
It isn't a proof, statistical or otherwise, rather it is used to demonstrate the consequences of each. On can never "know" how many people are truly guilty or not, but you can engineer a system to provide as significant insurance against the imprisoning of innocent men and still ensure that the guilty have a very solid chance of going to prison.
Cost to protect daughter from crime:
$2000 Gunsite training, ammunition, misc. expenses.
$1000 firearm, holster, belt, spare magazines.
= $3000-$5000
Cost to protect daughter from being wrongly convicted of a crime:
$400/hr for a decent attorney
= $10,000 - $100,000+
Teaching her self-defense measure gives her a let's say hypothetically, and not in any doctrinaire sort of manner, a 90% chance of defeating an attempt on her life or body (nevermind that women who resist rape with a firearms are 99.99% successful). This alone will significantly reduce the odds that she's ever victimized by a crime at all, as the chief tactic of self-defense training is avoidance. So if the odds of her being a crime victim before were let's say 50% we reduce the odds to 5%
If instead we lock up 90% of all people who commit crimes, versus 60% of criminals who commit crimes, we reduce the odds that she's ever victimized at all by 50% (being most generous), thus her odds of being a crime victim drop to 25%
Yet the trade off is that you've increased the chance that she's wrongly convicted for a crime she didn't commit. Supposing the odds that she's ever brought to a crimnal trial at all to be 10%, and the odds that she's then wrongly convicted at either 10% or .01% the odds of her being wrongly convicted of a crime have increased 1000%
Some trade off.
I'll take my odds with the freed criminals.
-Morgan
You assume I'm claiming more than I am. I never said one could know with any certainty, rather I was presenting the end results of a system with no bias towards keeping innocent men out of jail and one that has a strong bias towards keeping innocent men out of jail.
It isn't a proof, statistical or otherwise, rather it is used to demonstrate the consequences of each. On can never "know" how many people are truly guilty or not, but you can engineer a system to provide as significant insurance against the imprisoning of innocent men and still ensure that the guilty have a very solid chance of going to prison.
So you're worried that your young daughter might be a crime victim, but you're not worried she might be wrongly charged with a crime and imprisoned?
Cost to protect daughter from crime:
$2000 Gunsite training, ammunition, misc. expenses.
$1000 firearm, holster, belt, spare magazines.
= $3000-$5000
Cost to protect daughter from being wrongly convicted of a crime:
$400/hr for a decent attorney
= $10,000 - $100,000+
Teaching her self-defense measure gives her a let's say hypothetically, and not in any doctrinaire sort of manner, a 90% chance of defeating an attempt on her life or body (nevermind that women who resist rape with a firearms are 99.99% successful). This alone will significantly reduce the odds that she's ever victimized by a crime at all, as the chief tactic of self-defense training is avoidance. So if the odds of her being a crime victim before were let's say 50% we reduce the odds to 5%
If instead we lock up 90% of all people who commit crimes, versus 60% of criminals who commit crimes, we reduce the odds that she's ever victimized at all by 50% (being most generous), thus her odds of being a crime victim drop to 25%
Yet the trade off is that you've increased the chance that she's wrongly convicted for a crime she didn't commit. Supposing the odds that she's ever brought to a crimnal trial at all to be 10%, and the odds that she's then wrongly convicted at either 10% or .01% the odds of her being wrongly convicted of a crime have increased 1000%
Some trade off.
I'll take my odds with the freed criminals.
-Morgan
Graystar
Member
No. That's evidence you're referring to...not testimony.
And once again, for the umphteen time, the issue being discussed is not whether a confession should be considered compelled or not. The issue being discussed is how Miranda has changed the court's process of that consideration.
I guess we should just consider this discussion over, as I can't seem to keep anyone on topic.
pittspilot
Member
If you can't keep anyone on topic, it is either the topic, the scope, or you, since it can't really be the fault of everyone.
Graystar
Member
More presumptions...
pittspilot
Member
Nope, empiricism
Graystar
Member
It's only empiricism if you see what's there...not what you want to see.
Some soldiers don't have faith in interrogation
From Tactical Froums:
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001011.html
Razor_strop's post is the one referenced.
-Morgan
From Tactical Froums:
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001011.html
Razor_strop's post is the one referenced.
-Morgan
English John
Member
"And once again, for the umphteen time, the issue being discussed is not whether a confession should be considered compelled or not. The issue being discussed is how Miranda has changed the court's process of that consideration."
Graystar- now, finally, you are right.
If we look at the "totality of the situation" for all of these posts, (and you need a lawyer to read some of them):
We all are innocent until proven guilty. We all have a 5thA right against self incrimination, and the USSC initiated Miranda so that we could be sure that everyone was aware of that right. Before Miranda we couldn't be positive how the confession was obtained, or if it was obtained against the suspect's rights if he didn't know those rights. So now we have to TELL you your rights, just in case you don't know them. Maybe when Miranda was instituted many people didn't understand their rights, but you would have to live under a rock not to be aware of them today. Nevertheless, even if the suspect is a known attorney he will still listen to his rights.
OK, now you are in custody and heard your rights. Do you want to talk to me without your attorney present?
NO? OK, shut up and wait for your attorney and then we will all talk.
YES? If I can convince you, persuade you, work on your conscience, your religion, your sympathy, tell you your buddy is pinning it on you and you should tell me your side, a witness saw you, I have damning physical evidence, and get you to talk it is admissable. (I hope none of us are talking of physical abuse here.) I can talk to you, I don't have to shut up, I don't have to hold your hand. You don't have to listen, you don't have to talk, but if you do I can (will) use it against you in court.
"Miranda has changed the court's process of that consideration." Yup, I will tell the judge "I advised this man of his Miranda rights, he decided to talk to me and signed a waiver of his rights and a confession." What is the judge supposed to think? His "consideration" is that you gave me a VOLUNTARY confession. Notice I have avoided the word "compelled." We all seem to have a different meaning of the word, including Mr. Webster. I don't think anything I mentioned above "compelled" your testimony, and it will (and should) be admissable in court. And yes, the judge will consider the Miranda rights with the testimony, but I CAN talk to you AFTER I read you your rights. You seem to believe that I can't, or shouldn't.
As every LEO in this thread has advised: Listen to the rights, ask for an attorney, and SHUT UP. IT'S YOUR CHOICE. Don't cry if you make the wrong one.
Graystar- now, finally, you are right.
If we look at the "totality of the situation" for all of these posts, (and you need a lawyer to read some of them):
We all are innocent until proven guilty. We all have a 5thA right against self incrimination, and the USSC initiated Miranda so that we could be sure that everyone was aware of that right. Before Miranda we couldn't be positive how the confession was obtained, or if it was obtained against the suspect's rights if he didn't know those rights. So now we have to TELL you your rights, just in case you don't know them. Maybe when Miranda was instituted many people didn't understand their rights, but you would have to live under a rock not to be aware of them today. Nevertheless, even if the suspect is a known attorney he will still listen to his rights.
OK, now you are in custody and heard your rights. Do you want to talk to me without your attorney present?
NO? OK, shut up and wait for your attorney and then we will all talk.
YES? If I can convince you, persuade you, work on your conscience, your religion, your sympathy, tell you your buddy is pinning it on you and you should tell me your side, a witness saw you, I have damning physical evidence, and get you to talk it is admissable. (I hope none of us are talking of physical abuse here.) I can talk to you, I don't have to shut up, I don't have to hold your hand. You don't have to listen, you don't have to talk, but if you do I can (will) use it against you in court.
"Miranda has changed the court's process of that consideration." Yup, I will tell the judge "I advised this man of his Miranda rights, he decided to talk to me and signed a waiver of his rights and a confession." What is the judge supposed to think? His "consideration" is that you gave me a VOLUNTARY confession. Notice I have avoided the word "compelled." We all seem to have a different meaning of the word, including Mr. Webster. I don't think anything I mentioned above "compelled" your testimony, and it will (and should) be admissable in court. And yes, the judge will consider the Miranda rights with the testimony, but I CAN talk to you AFTER I read you your rights. You seem to believe that I can't, or shouldn't.
As every LEO in this thread has advised: Listen to the rights, ask for an attorney, and SHUT UP. IT'S YOUR CHOICE. Don't cry if you make the wrong one.
Graystar
Member
"Finally"??
If you read the very first post, you'll see that this was the topic all along.And after Miranda we STILL can't be positive how a confession was obtained!! THAT'S THE POINT!! An involuntary confession is, by definition, beyond the control of the confessor. How is knowing his rights going to change anything?? Yet, if the accused has been read his rights, the confession now gains a validity that it shouldn't have.
English John
Member
"Yet, if the accused has been read his rights, the confession now gains a validity that it shouldn't have."
Step by step:
You are in custody (you can't leave)
I read to you your Miranda rights.
"Now that I have advised you of your rights are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney?" (right from the card)
I use all of the verbal/mental techniques discussed by all of the LEOs in the above threads. I don't hold your hand, offer you milk and cookies, have a warm fuzzy feeling, or violate your rights.
You talk to me. (your choice) (read that again; YOUR CHOICE)
You sign a waiver and a confession (without physical force, threats of violence or retribution, etc., I.E. NO COMPULSION. Can we say "voluntary?").
We go see the judge. IT IS ALL VALID. Looking at the paperwork, what else is the judge supposed to think? The accused HAS been read his rights, and the confession now gains a validity that it SHOULD have.
In 6 pages of threads I think you were the only one that had a problem with this. Are you looking at what you think should be, or what is? You seem to be saying that there can NEVER be a voluntary confession.
Step by step:
You are in custody (you can't leave)
I read to you your Miranda rights.
"Now that I have advised you of your rights are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney?" (right from the card)
I use all of the verbal/mental techniques discussed by all of the LEOs in the above threads. I don't hold your hand, offer you milk and cookies, have a warm fuzzy feeling, or violate your rights.
You talk to me. (your choice) (read that again; YOUR CHOICE)
You sign a waiver and a confession (without physical force, threats of violence or retribution, etc., I.E. NO COMPULSION. Can we say "voluntary?").
We go see the judge. IT IS ALL VALID. Looking at the paperwork, what else is the judge supposed to think? The accused HAS been read his rights, and the confession now gains a validity that it SHOULD have.
In 6 pages of threads I think you were the only one that had a problem with this. Are you looking at what you think should be, or what is? You seem to be saying that there can NEVER be a voluntary confession.
Graystar
Member
And for a second there I thought you understood what the discussion was about.Guess I'll have to say it again...This discussion is not about what constitutes a compelled confession. You want to talk about that then start another thread on that subject.
This thread is about how the courts view the validity of ANY confession.
You're "step by step" is pointless and doesn't address the issue. There are cases where the validity of obviously voluntary confessions are questioned simply because the confession was made before the reading of rights. The reverse has also happened. That shouldn't be.
You seem to believe that it is impossible for any confession to be compelled if the accused made the admission voluntarily. But if you thought about that for a second you’d realize that such a view doesn’t make sense. ALL admissions are made voluntarily…regardless of whether they are compelled or not. Otherwise, you could never possibly have a compelled confession. If I put a gun to your wife or child and I say confess or I’ll shoot them, you’ll voluntarily make the statement, but that statement is still compelled. If a cop reads a person his rights and then promises to let him go home if he would just say he did something, then any statement made is compelled. If a judge now says that such a statement is valid because rights were read, *now* you’ve come to the issue that I am discussing. The reading of rights should have no bearing on the question of a compelled testimony because remaining silent is a voluntary act, while being compelled to confess is an involuntary act.
English John
Member
"There are cases where the validity of obviously voluntary confessions are questioned simply because the confession was made before the reading of rights." That' why we have Miranda, I think we agree on that.
"The reverse has also happened. That shouldn't be." If a suspect makes an "obviously voluntary confession" AFTER Miranda, sorry, I DON"T see any problem.
"You seem to believe that it is impossible for any confession to be compelled if the accused made the admission voluntarily." If it was a VOLUNTARY confession, that's right! You seem to think that any voluntary statement made after Miranda MUST have been compelled.
" ALL admissions are made voluntarily…regardless of whether they are compelled or not." Wrong. If they are VOLUNTARY, they are NOT compelled. They can't be both.
"If I put a gun to your wife or child and I say confess or I’ll shoot them, you’ll voluntarily make the statement, but that statement is still compelled." How can it be VOLUNTARY and COMPELLED at the same time???? That is not a voluntary statement, it was compelled. It is NOT admissable. Look up duress.
"If a cop reads a person his rights and then promises to let him go home if he would just say he did something, then any statement made is compelled." Right, because the cop LIED, and if he testifies that the confession was voluntary that is perjury. It is not a valid statement.
"If a judge now says that such a statement is valid because rights were read, *now* you’ve come to the issue that I am discussing." Yes, that is what we are discussing, but the statements immediately above are NOT valid because of duress. It was NOT voluntary, not valid, and not admissable.
"The reading of rights should have no bearing on the question of a compelled testimony because remaining silent is a voluntary act, while being compelled to confess is an involuntary act." Right, it has no bearing on COMPELLED testimony, remaining silent IS a voluntary act, being COMPELLED to testify is an involuntary act. Now we not only disagree on the meaning of COMPULSARY, but VOLUNTARY as well. You appear to believe that anything that comes out of your mouth after Miranda is automatically compelled testimony. Not so.
Again, from the card: "Now that I have advised you of your rights are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney?" If you say yes, if you talk to me VOLUNTARILY, without duress, you voluntarily waived your rights, it is not compelled testimony and IS admissable. You're right, I don't have a problem with that.
You seem to think that the game plan is read 'em their rights and get out the rubber hose. Then make them sign the waiver and a confession, rush them in front of a judge and "testilie" that all statements were voluntary. I won't say that never happened, or couldn't happen, but some LEOs have gone to jail for doing that. I don't see it today.
Again: Listen to the rights, ask for an attorney, and SHUT UP.
"The reverse has also happened. That shouldn't be." If a suspect makes an "obviously voluntary confession" AFTER Miranda, sorry, I DON"T see any problem.
"You seem to believe that it is impossible for any confession to be compelled if the accused made the admission voluntarily." If it was a VOLUNTARY confession, that's right! You seem to think that any voluntary statement made after Miranda MUST have been compelled.
" ALL admissions are made voluntarily…regardless of whether they are compelled or not." Wrong. If they are VOLUNTARY, they are NOT compelled. They can't be both.
"If I put a gun to your wife or child and I say confess or I’ll shoot them, you’ll voluntarily make the statement, but that statement is still compelled." How can it be VOLUNTARY and COMPELLED at the same time???? That is not a voluntary statement, it was compelled. It is NOT admissable. Look up duress.
"If a cop reads a person his rights and then promises to let him go home if he would just say he did something, then any statement made is compelled." Right, because the cop LIED, and if he testifies that the confession was voluntary that is perjury. It is not a valid statement.
"If a judge now says that such a statement is valid because rights were read, *now* you’ve come to the issue that I am discussing." Yes, that is what we are discussing, but the statements immediately above are NOT valid because of duress. It was NOT voluntary, not valid, and not admissable.
"The reading of rights should have no bearing on the question of a compelled testimony because remaining silent is a voluntary act, while being compelled to confess is an involuntary act." Right, it has no bearing on COMPELLED testimony, remaining silent IS a voluntary act, being COMPELLED to testify is an involuntary act. Now we not only disagree on the meaning of COMPULSARY, but VOLUNTARY as well. You appear to believe that anything that comes out of your mouth after Miranda is automatically compelled testimony. Not so.
Again, from the card: "Now that I have advised you of your rights are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney?" If you say yes, if you talk to me VOLUNTARILY, without duress, you voluntarily waived your rights, it is not compelled testimony and IS admissable. You're right, I don't have a problem with that.
You seem to think that the game plan is read 'em their rights and get out the rubber hose. Then make them sign the waiver and a confession, rush them in front of a judge and "testilie" that all statements were voluntary. I won't say that never happened, or couldn't happen, but some LEOs have gone to jail for doing that. I don't see it today.
Again: Listen to the rights, ask for an attorney, and SHUT UP.
Graystar
Member
English john, you're just not understanding my point so I'll stop trying to explain.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"It is not your duty to understand me. It is my duty to make myself understood."
This is not just an Internet problem, but the duty always exists in discourse.
, Art
This is not just an Internet problem, but the duty always exists in discourse.
, ArtGraystar
Member
I think I made a good-faith effort. But your quote presumes a capacity to understand...a capacity that I think has been exceeded.
English John
Member
"English john, you're just not understanding my point so I'll stop trying to explain."
I understand that you believe if anyone opens his mouth after the Miranda warning it could never be voluntary and the LEO must have somehow compelled the poor suspect to talk against his will, make an involuntary statement that was coerced and compelled, and then lied to a judge about it. I understand that you believe that any statement made after Miranda could never be admissable. Fortunately, the courts disagree. I think you still confuse voluntary and compulsion.
I understand that you believe if anyone opens his mouth after the Miranda warning it could never be voluntary and the LEO must have somehow compelled the poor suspect to talk against his will, make an involuntary statement that was coerced and compelled, and then lied to a judge about it. I understand that you believe that any statement made after Miranda could never be admissable. Fortunately, the courts disagree. I think you still confuse voluntary and compulsion.
- Status
