Boston suspect read Miranda rights -- by the magistrate

[sailingaway]

don't know if he got them earlier: http://t.co/s3r7huB06h

[Ranger29860]

He always had the rights. Whether or not he was reminded about them is a whole nother thing. Am I correct in thinking that?

[sailingaway]

Not entirely sure. Probably he could stay silent, if he had the fortitude, in the face of whatever they did to get him to speak (not even talking torture, but power to withhold medical existed even if they didn't allude to it, other tricks exist), but if he asked for an attorney did they have to stop asking him questions until they brought one?

There may be times a public security exemption is justified... but Obama's executive order on this stretched it beyond the pale imho.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'd hate to be the junky that jacked THAT drug box...

-t

[nobody's_hero]

He always had the rights. Whether or not he was reminded about them is a whole nother thing. Am I correct in thinking that?

Yes. You are correct. But I've seen such a comment about 1,000 times on this forum, and people don't seem to be understanding Miranda rights. Miranda rights don't grant rights. They simply inform the accused of their rights.

Libertarians are correct in that these rights exist before they're read. But we seem to be nit-picking here.

Let's face it, most people don't know their rights. They SHOULD, but they don't. There's no harm whatsoever in a gov't official informing someone of their rights before proceedings begin. I would much rather prefer that to a proceeding which goes ahead without the accused having any knowledge of his/her rights.

However, if you are arguing from the standpoint that government is foolish to think that somehow 'not reading' those rights will deny them, then philosophically, you'll get no argument from me. Lots of hot-heads in Neocon media today seem to be arguing whether or not he should get the rights, which is moot since they already exist. (maybe that's what you meant)

But there is no problem with reading Miranda rights to someone. That's splitting hairs. It's not a granting of rights, only a reaffirmation. Just as the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it only reaffirms them.

[jmdrake]

Very good points!

Yes. You are correct. But I've seen such a comment about 1,000 times on this forum, and people don't seem to be understanding Miranda rights. Miranda rights don't grant rights. They simply inform the accused of their rights.

Libertarians are correct in that these rights exist before they're read. But we seem to be nit-picking here.

Let's face it, most people don't know their rights. They SHOULD, but they don't. There's no harm whatsoever in a gov't official informing someone of their rights before proceedings begin. I would much rather prefer that to a proceeding which goes ahead without the accused having any knowledge of his/her rights.

However, if you are arguing from the standpoint that government is foolish to think that somehow 'not reading' those rights will deny them, then philosophically, you'll get no argument from me. Lots of hot-heads in Neocon media today seem to be arguing whether or not he should get the rights, which is moot since they already exist. (maybe that's what you meant)

But there is no problem with reading Miranda rights to someone. That's splitting hairs. It's not a granting of rights, only a reaffirmation. Just as the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it only reaffirms them.

[sailingaway]

Yes. You are correct. But I've seen such a comment about 1,000 times on this forum, and people don't seem to be understanding Miranda rights. Miranda rights don't grant rights. They simply inform the accused of their rights.

Libertarians are correct in that these rights exist before they're read. But we seem to be nit-picking here.

Let's face it, most people don't know their rights. They SHOULD, but they don't. There's no harm whatsoever in a gov't official informing someone of their rights before proceedings begin. I would much rather prefer that to a proceeding which goes ahead without the accused having any knowledge of his/her rights.

However, if you are arguing from the standpoint that government is foolish to think that somehow 'not reading' those rights will deny them, then philosophically, you'll get no argument from me. Lots of hot-heads in Neocon media today seem to be arguing whether or not he should get the rights, which is moot since they already exist. (maybe that's what you meant)

But there is no problem with reading Miranda rights to someone. That's splitting hairs. It's not a granting of rights, only a reaffirmation. Just as the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it only reaffirms them.

But after NDAA, would he know he had them?

[better-dead-than-fed]

rights are a funny thing when you have every reason to believe you'll be tortured if you exercise them.

[ItsTime]

How much of what he said or didn't say could actually been used against him? Everything he said in the hospital should be thrown out. He was heavily drugged.

Not that I am defending him. Just saying they should not be able to drug anyone than use what they say while drugged against them.

[CPUd]

The only real difference now is that whatever statement he give will most definitely be used against him, whereas before, it couldn't not be inadmissible (meaning it would get further in a challenge by the defense, but probably would still be admissible).

How much of what he said or didn't say could actually been used against him? Everything he said in the hospital should be thrown out. He was heavily drugged.

Not that I am defending him. Just saying they should not be able to drug anyone than use what they say while drugged against them.

That could be challenged, but it would depend on the nature of the statement, may or may not be admissible.

[better-dead-than-fed]

How much of what he said or didn't say could actually been used against him? Everything he said in the hospital should be thrown out. He was heavily drugged.

Not that I am defending him. Just saying they should not be able to drug anyone than use what they say while drugged against them.

deja vu

... Jackson was given 50 milligrams of demerol and 1/50 of a grain of scopolamine at 3:55 a. m. Immediately thereafter an Assistant District Attorney, in the presence of police officers and hospital personnel, questioned Jackson, the interrogation being recorded by a stenographer. Jackson, who has been shot in the liver and lung, had by this time lost about 500 cc. of blood. Jackson again admitted the robbery in the hotel, and then said, "Look, I can't go on." But in response to further questions he admitted shooting the policeman and having fired the first shot. The interview was completed at 4 a. m. An operation upon petitioner was begun at 5 a. m. and completed at 8 a. m. ...

-- Jackson v. Denno, 378 US 368 - Supreme Court 1964

[brandon]

He always had the rights. Whether or not he was reminded about them is a whole nother thing. Am I correct in thinking that?

Yes. I was a bit of a troubled youth and was arrested several times for petty crimes. Never once was I read my miranda rights. I think that's only something that happens on TV.

[Carson]

Yes. You are correct. But I've seen such a comment about 1,000 times on this forum, and people don't seem to be understanding Miranda rights. Miranda rights don't grant rights. They simply inform the accused of their rights.

Libertarians are correct in that these rights exist before they're read. But we seem to be nit-picking here.

Let's face it, most people don't know their rights. They SHOULD, but they don't. There's no harm whatsoever in a gov't official informing someone of their rights before proceedings begin. I would much rather prefer that to a proceeding which goes ahead without the accused having any knowledge of his/her rights.

However, if you are arguing from the standpoint that government is foolish to think that somehow 'not reading' those rights will deny them, then philosophically, you'll get no argument from me. Lots of hot-heads in Neocon media today seem to be arguing whether or not he should get the rights, which is moot since they already exist. (maybe that's what you meant)

But there is no problem with reading Miranda rights to someone. That's splitting hairs. It's not a granting of rights, only a reaffirmation. Just as the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it only reaffirms them.

I can't remember how but I think a Supreme Court ruling limits the governments use of information before and after the rights are read.

I too am with the reaffirmation aspect. And as a reminder.

I'm sort of thinking we didn't have Miranda Rights when I was a kid.


P.S.1966

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

Ahhh. Here it is.

Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

[better-dead-than-fed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

Ahhh. Here it is.

Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

Wikipedia's wrong there. The statements may be used for incrimination at trial under Quarles v New York.

[sailingaway]

Yes. I was a bit of a troubled youth and was arrested several times for petty crimes. Never once was I read my miranda rights. I think that's only something that happens on TV.

but most cases don't get to trial but are solved through plea bargain. If it got to trial and the case turned on what you said (not witnesses or whatever) it could have been brought out in court.