Dec 7, 2009

Miranda Plus?

Could this U.S. Supreme Court actually be headed toward expanding the famous Miranda Warning to suspects?

4 comments:

  1. The Miranda warnings are full of "legalese" and are difficult for many to understand. Especially if the warnings are read off rapidly by an officer focusing on handcuffing, etc., the warnings at that time may actually take away the rights of the person being arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So the statement he SIGNED, indicating that he understood that he has "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions" leaves it unclear that he has the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of their questions?

    Maybe the definition of "understand" should be spelled out, too.

    I'm all for due process and blind justice, but every citizen has a responsibility to know their rights, not the right to have their criminal charges dismissed because the way they were reminded of their rights was only mostly explicit in the retelling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not so easy, Systopos. Are the Miranda warnings taught in the public and private schools?

    An arrest is a stressful situation for the arrested person and for the officer. Particularly for a first-time arrested person, the process is confusing and frightening.

    And what about a person whose primary language is not English?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Innocent until proven guilty...

    The Fifth Amendment...

    Right to jury trial by one's peers...

    Oh come on!

    PLEASE!

    I mean, what were the Founding Fathers thinking!?!

    We have DNA and video!

    (I shall now remove my tongue from its position in my cheek.)

    ReplyDelete