Miranda Rights

[André Masséna]

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

Oh, the good old Miranda Rights that we all enjoy so much. To put it lightly, if you here these words directed at you, you're in for a bad time. My question, however, is why must these rights be read to you? It refers to your Fifth Amendment Right not to self incrimination, but honestly...it's available for all to see.

If one hasn't taken it upon himself to know a basic right, like the 5th amendment, why should he be informed of this right? Not that I suggest this right should be removed...that would be insane. But should the reading of these rights be mandatory? It seems rather a shame that someone who confesses can be let go because someone didn't read them this right. Interested in your opinions on it.

[Sphere]

It is actually a protection for law enforcement rather than citizens. The police are allowed to do some fairly devious things while interogating someone; lying, making up evidence, making up witnesses, making up laws (I even heard of some cops that used a Xerox machine as a "lie detector" by photocopying the suspects hand).

Reading someone their miranda rights gaurantees that any subsequent tricks in interrogation will be permited in the court of law, there is no grey area when it comes to what someone says in interrogation, its black and white.

[C-Rob]

... ever read a book... EVER? Look up its history. If you are not read your rights, what you say while in custody cannot be used it court. It's directly used to protect the rights of the accused. I think it all started when there was a problem with immigrants being arrested and not knowing they don't have to confess to what they've been accused of, in pain of torture- the way they had grown up in.

[André Masséna]

... ever read a book... EVER? Look up its history. If you are not read your rights, what you say while in custody cannot be used it court. It's directly used to protect the rights of the accused. I think it all started when there was a problem with immigrants being arrested and not knowing they don't have to confess to what they've been accused of, in pain of torture- the way they had grown up in.

Yes, I know where the name for the rights come from, and why it was put in place. But it seems rather stupid to me, for testimony not to be used if the rights are not read. If it's a new immigrant, don't they have to pass a Citizenship test that would cover the bill of rights?

[Zephyrus]

miranda offers nice loopholes for defendent and cop alike. If I was a criminal caught in the act and I got caught red-handed and got my miranda rights read to, I'd ignore it and say i didnt get informed of them in order to be let go on a technicality. Awsome law ftw!

[Viking Prince]

We are a democracy and we wish to constrain the government to ensure freedom and liberty. Society must observe some restraints in how we prosecute criminals. The Miranda warning is just such a constraint. Chief Justice Earl Warren was hated for many such majority opinions by many conservatives in the 1960's. Odd that I am a conservative and that I can truly appreciate the true value of such a warning. I am grateful that he had the wisdom to constrain both the police and congress with his ruling.

[Lord Consul]

We are a democracy and we wish to constrain the government to ensure freedom and liberty. Society must observe some restraints in how we prosecute criminals.

Exactly. The right to remain silent (as enunciated in the Miranda warning) is an essential part of every civilized society and functioning democracy.

In Brazil, people are taking into custody 1970s style ("You're nicked! Get into into the ****ing vehicle") and only read their rights after they arrive at the nearest police station, where there'll be a public attorney waiting. It goes on without saying that many people get scared and end up incriminating themselves before arriving at the station...

[Gelgoog]

because in our court system we would rather let 100 criminals go free then imprison 1 innocent, which is why we give so many rights to the accused.

[YuriVII]

Sometimes (not in all cases) it is unclear when you are legally in custody. Like all law it gets abused of coarse, but I would rather have them exist than not.

@scheuch13, I agree absolutely. That is why the American criminal justice system is a good system (despite all its flaws). US should never abandon that philosophy.

[Strattios]

I agree that it's stupid to read people their rights. It's like the fact that gas fire places require stickers that say "Caution: HOT" on them.It's just pandering to a bunch of morons who can now try to deny things by saying that they weren't read their rights. It's almost as stupid as the fact that if you had a law degree yet you haven't practiced in years and some random bloke asked for your advice about something regarding either legal or financial matters, they could latter sue you if they acted on the advice and it turned out to be incorrect simply because you have the license.

[jankren]

Trivial issue. I see no reason why it should be a problem. Its not like the police have to read a whole book.

[André Masséna]

The issue is that if these rights and not read, guilty people walk.

[Viking Prince]

The issue is that if these rights and not read, guilty people walk.

No, I disagree. The issue is that if these rights are not read, that police and legislators may tighten the prosecutor's grip on suspects. We still wish to presume that all are innocent until found guilty in a court of law. All suspects should be allowed such presumptions and be advised that they have options when dealing with the police.

[Lord Consul]

Does this happen frequently? I mean, is it common to see "guilty"* people taken into custody being released because the arresting officer did not mirandize them?

*Every person is innocent till proven otherwise, but let's keep that aside for this discussion

[Captain Blackadder]

Does this happen frequently? I mean, is it common to see "guilty"* people taken into custody being released because the arresting officer did not mirandize them?

*Every person is innocent till proven otherwise, but let's keep that aside for this discussion

Its not common but it does happen I suspect it happens when the suspect tries to flee and there is a big chase or fight and the cop is not thinking clearly.

[Aetius]

Always remain silent, and request for an attorney.



....trust me.

[André Masséna]

Did you need your rights read to you for you to know that?

[Viking Prince]

Did you need your rights read to you for you to know that?

The point is to protect the rights of the least amongst us, not to favor those who are most aware and knowledgable in the law. Though I know what my rights are, I may not be thinking straight when contacted and interviewed by authorities. A reminder may be needed by the smartest and brightest in moments of chaos.

[Zephyrus]

The point is to protect the rights of the least amongst us, not to favor those who are most aware and knowledgable in the law. Though I know what my rights are, I may not be thinking straight when contacted and interviewed by authorities. A reminder may be needed by the smartest and brightest in moments of chaos.

+ Rep. That was the best paragraph i've seen defending the use of Miranda.

[André Masséna]

It's been used as a loophole on occasion, when situations like Blackadder suggested come to pass.