Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: Tiger Wench on February 26, 2010, 08:56:47 PM
-
A crime suspect who invokes his "right to remain silent" under the famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. And if he freely agrees to talk then, his incriminatory statements can be used against him.
In a 9-0 decision in a Maryland child-abuse case, the high court overturned a strict rule set in 1981 that barred police from questioning a suspect once he had asked to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer. Known as the "Edwards rule," it was intended to prevent investigators from "badgering" a suspect who was held in jail after he had invoked his Miranda rights. In some cases, police had awakened a suspect in the middle of the night and asked him again to waive his rights and to admit to a crime.
Although that rule makes sense for suspects who are held in jail, it does not make sense for suspects who have gone free, the justices said Wednesday. In recent years, it has been understood to prevent police from ever re-questioning a freed suspect, even for other crimes in other places.
"In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence" of the no-further-questioning rule "is disastrous," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
If there has been a "break in custody" and the suspect has gone free, Scalia said the police should be allowed to speak with him after some period of time. "It seems to us that period is 14 days," he said. "That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get re-acclimated to his normal life (and) to consult with friends and counsel."
Then, if the suspect waives his rights and agrees to talk, any statement he makes can be used against him, the court said.
The ruling in Maryland vs. Shatzer reinstates a child-abuse conviction against a Maryland man who made incriminatory statements to a state investigator 2 1/2 years after he had first been questioned by police. At that time, Michael Statzer refused to talk without first consulting a lawyer. Later, however, he had been sent to state prison on another, unrelated charge.
When a new investigator asked him about the original allegation, he agreed to speak and admitted abusing his son. However, he later won a ruling from the Maryland courts that said his statements could not be used against him because he had been questioned without his lawyer.
The high court overturned the Maryland court's decision and ruled that Shatzer's incriminatory statements could be used to convict him of child abuse.
Gives new meaning to "forever hold your peace..."
-
"And, if that doesn't work then we're going to listen in on your conversation with whomever." What fucking mess we have in this country? This is totally getting out of hand. I'm not saying let criminals go free but geez, can we stop with the totalitarianism already?
-
"And, if that doesn't work then we're going to listen in on your conversation with whomever." What fucking mess we have in this country? This is totally getting out of hand. I'm not saying let criminals go free but geez, can we stop with the totalitarianism already?
Where the hell do you get totalitarianism out of this? You still have the right to remain silent - now or two weeks from now. If you are a career criminal, you know that - hell, most of them can say the Mirandas better than the cops. This just says that being read your rights once is not a perpetual "can't use anything you say against you" card. If you have something to hide, then keep your fucking mouth shut.
-
Where the hell do you get totalitarianism out of this? You still have the right to remain silent - now or two weeks from now. If you are a career criminal, you know that - hell, most of them can say the Mirandas better than the cops. This just says that being read your rights once is not a perpetual "can't use anything you say against you" card. If you have something to hide, then keep your fucking mouth shut.
I'm Libertarian, anything else is progressive and unacceptable to me.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4056197/the-one-thing-226 (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4056197/the-one-thing-226)
-
I'm Libertarian, anything else is progressive and unacceptable to me.
No, you're a tinfoil hat wearing moonbat.
All this says is that being mirandized once does not give you lifetime Miranda immunity. Once you have been read your rights, you can subsequently waive those rights and have your statements used against you. If you were mirandized for a burgulary charge, but then they question later you on a rape charge, should the first Miranda still apply? Hell no. Like the Justice said - too many career criminals in this country. All this does is clarify that common sense position.
This is not giving the police any more power than they had before. it is just clarifying how long a single Miranda warning can remain in effect. Again - the government cannot FORCE you to open your damn mouth. They can, however, wait two weeks and question you again. The shot clock resets. If you are stupid enough to confess the second time they question you, well, aren't you a moron?
And aren't I a moron for arguing with you...
-
Sista, we just having fun. And no neither of us are morons because we both no how to turn on and off a computer, which more than I can say for 90% of the bammers. And, yes I'm paranoid but not tinfoil hat. The tinfoil hat provide no protection and even made things worse. And, I understand Miranda rights, but Miranda rights came looong after the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written and signed.
-
I find this reasonable. If you can't get your shit together in 2 weeks, you are too stupid to be free.
-
I find this reasonable. If you can't get your shit together in 2 weeks, you are too stupid to be free.
:rofl:
-
I find this reasonable. If you can't get your poop together in 2 weeks, you are too stupid to be free live.
FTFY...