Friday, April 26, 2013

Miranda warning, not Miranda rights

It seems that the Boston bomber has now been read his Miranda warning, and liberals are happy now that his rights are being protected.

Assholes.

They don't understand what Miranda warning means.

In the Miranda ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that in order to preserve the admissibility of a suspect's statements against him or her in a court, a criminal suspect must be warned of such. The purpose of the Miranda warning is to inform the suspect that, as of the time of the warning, his statements may be used against him in court.

That is, the Miranda warning marks the beginning of the suspect's legal jeopardy during interrogation. During the interrogation prior to the Miranda warning,  the suspect is not in jeopardy, because his statements cannot be used against him.

The suspect has a right to avoid self-incrimination and a right to counsel, guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Those rights are protected by the Supreme Court's Miranda ruling, but they are not protected by reading the Miranda warning to a suspect. 

I'll say it again: reading a suspect his Miranda warning does not protect his rights. He has rights irrespective of whether the warning was read or not. Reading a suspect his Miranda warning informs him of the beginning of his jeopardy. His jeopardy begins with the warning.  If he is not read the warning, he is not in jeopardy. He can say anything he likes, and it cannot be used against him in court.

Thus, reading a suspect his Miranda warning does not protect his rights. It has, in fact, no bearing on his rights. He retains his Fifth and Six Amendment rights, whether he is read the warning or not. The warning merely informs the suspect that from that moment on his statements to police can be used against him in court.

So reading the Boston bomber dirtbag his "Miranda rights" does not protect his rights in any way. He retains his rights, whether the warning is read or not.

So, a thoughtful reader might ask, why read him the Miranda warning at all? Well, there is in fact no reason to do so, as long as the prosecution has enough evidence to convict without obtaining statements by the suspect. When there is abundant evidence without the subject's statement, there is no reason to read the Miranda warning at all. Without the Miranda warning, the suspect may provide valuable evidence that may help prevent or solve another crime, or may help protect the public from future terrorist attacks. Without the Miranda warning, those statements cannot be used against that suspect in court, but where there is abundant evidence otherwise, the suspect's statements are not needed to convict him.

The Left's bleating about the need to Mirandize bomb boy in order to 'protect Constitutional rights' is idiotic. These fools don't have the faintest idea what a Miranda warning actually means. While the Supreme Court's 1966 Miranda ruling-- by excluding from court a suspect's statements made before a Miranda warning-- does indeed protect Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, the act of Mirandizing a suspect doesn't protect any rights at all. It actually places the suspect in greater jeopardy.

The Boston bomber was in much greater legal jeopardy after he was Mirandized-- then his statements could be used against him in court.

So why read the Boston bomber his Miranda warning? After all, they have him on videotape planting the bomb. They don't need his statements/confession to convict him. The only thing that is accomplished by reading him his Miranda warning is that it encourages him to shut up.

Why would they want a terrorist bomber to shut up?

30 comments:

  1. Egnor: Why would they want a terrorist bomber to shut up?

    You are delusional, doc. You might want to see a psychiatrist pronto.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 26, 2013 at 8:08 AM

      Maybe you should drop a dime on him. Soviet psychiatry pretty much invented the concept of "political dissent as insanity". And it was famous for its modern methods of re-educating political dissidents.

      And there's something it it for you, too: it's a great opportunity for some quality bootlicking and a pat on the head.

      Delete
    2. Admiral it looks like, with Glen Beck’s help, you’ve figured it all out. I must now report you to my Agenda 21 superiors and recommend that you come under black helicopter surveillance. You will not be allowed to deny our use of the Overton Window. Your movements, associations, and speech will be recorded, and we will see to it that you are perceived as a stark raving lunatic. Some may think I’m joking, but you know the truth.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. Even if you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not watching you.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 26, 2013 at 11:02 AM

      The vitriol of a sissy-boy tattletale is balm to my soul. Keep up the good work, lickspittle.

      Delete
    5. Sissy? Tattletale? I haven’t heard that since second grade. Allow me to respond in kind; I’m rubber and you’re glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

      That was fun. Thank you for the chance to relive a little bit of my childhood Admiral. Perhaps I will send you a toy ship to play with in the bath.

      -KW

      Delete
    6. Do you realize that I was mocking you, and I’m not really going to report you to the U.N.?

      -KW

      Delete
    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM

      Really? I'm disappointed, sissy-boy. Too busy disarming lust-crazed women?

      Delete
  2. FWIW, The Bombing Suspect Didn’t Engage In a Shootout with Police, Or Shoot Himself … He WASN’T EVEN ARMED When Hiding In the Boat.

    Which reminds me of Nietzsche's aphorism: “Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. Procedure. That's why. Rule of law. That's why.
    The moment the US authorities stop advising those being taken into custody of their rights (by decree), propping them up half dead in court, and assassinating people on presidential kill lists - they lose any moral high ground they held.
    Sorry, Doc.
    Totally disagree.
    I'm no lefty, but I do think a (ANY) suspect should be read his/her rights - especially if there is no confession required.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM

    As I noted here before, I fully understand the impulse to deny Miranda rights. And I don't even disagree, personally.

    But as a matter of law, I would hate to see this scumbag's case get thrown (even partially) because some Federal judge or the Supreme Court disagreed with the legal theory of a hack lawyer like Eric Holder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @crus and Adm:

      My point is that Mirandizing the bastard has nothing to do with protecting his rights. Mirandizing has to do with admissibility of evidence. His rights are unchanged by it. In fact, he is in greater legal jeopardy after being Mirandized.

      The question is: why would anybody want the guy to shut up? The ideal situation is to never Mirandize him, get as much information about networks, future attacks, etc as possible, and then convict him based on the slam-dunk evidence we already have. His rights would not have been violated in the least. And he would be convicted, and public safety would be maximized.

      I understand the point about not wanting to have some asshole federal judge throw the case out, but as I've pointed out, throwing the case out would be based on an inaccurate interpretation of Miranda.

      And regarding adherence to "procedure", adhering to procedure that does not protect rights and endangers the public is foolishness of a high degree.

      Delete
    2. Isn't it grand to live in an alternative universe?

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. @Hoo:

      Do you have any substantive disagreement with my post?

      On what points do you believe I am wrong?

      Delete
    4. The conspiracy theory about Democrats wanting to shut up Tsarnaev. Not a disagreement, really, just a hearty laugh. You, guys, are so far out.

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. @Hoo:

      I have no "theory". I asked a question: why would anyone want Tsarnaev to shut up?

      Given that Mirandizing him does not advance his rights (it actually places him in more legal jeopardy), and we have sufficient evidence to convict him anyway, why not let him talk without jeopardy?

      It could save many lives.

      Delete
    6. Of course you have no theory, you just believe that your political opponents have some nefarious motives no matter what they do. It's a paranoid view of the world.

      But seriously, your twisted idea simply does not work. The public-safety exception to the Miranda rule was introduced to resolve an emergency situation, in which the public is in immediate danger. It cannot be used to hold a suspect indefinitely as you seem to suggest.

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. Mirandizing Tsarnaev is not needed to convict him, it does not confer on him any new rights, and it encourages him to stop talking about things that have a direct impact on public safety.

      What does it accomplish?

      Delete
    8. Read the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Miranda warning has been established precisely to guarantee a person's rights to a due process of law, to counsel, and against self-incrimination. The public-safety exception provides for a temporary suspension of the Miranda warning, but not an indefinite suspension.

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. @Hoo:

      Did you read my post? The Miranda warning itself establishes no rights. The rights already exist. The Miranda warning marks the beginning of the time in which a suspect's statements can be used against him.

      If he is not Mirandized, none of his statements can be used against him. He is in less legal jeopardy without the Miranda warning.

      The purpose for the Miranda warning is to allow the police to use the suspect's statements subsequent to the warning against him at trial.

      The Miranda RULING does indeed help to guarantee rights under the fifth and sixth amendments.

      The Miranda WARNING does not guarantee rights. It actually marks the beginning of jeopardy.

      What's hard about that? I feel like I'm talking to an imbecile.

      Delete
    10. LOL, no need to lecture me, doc. I did not say that the Miranda warning establishes rights. It is established to guarantee them. Shove your comments where the sun don't shine.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. @Hoo:

      The Miranda warning guarantees no rights. It delineates the moment at which legal jeopardy begins.

      The rights are established in the Constitution.

      There is no reason to read a suspect his Miranda warning if you don't need his statements in court to convict him.

      If he is not read his warning, he may talk without additional legal jeopardy. That is in fact exactly what you want here: to get as much information out of the bastard as possible while protecting his rights, which is what NOT reading him a Miranda warning would accomplish.

      But you don't care about actually understanding it. As I said, it's like talking to an imbecile.

      Delete
    12. Repeating the same bullshit does not help you make a point, doc.

      "There is no reason to read a suspect his Miranda warning if you don't need his statements in court to convict him."

      The Miranda warning is issued not for the benefit of the prosecution, but for the benefit of the detainee.

      "If he is not read his warning, he may talk without additional legal jeopardy. That is in fact exactly what you want here: to get as much information out of the bastard as possible while protecting his rights, which is what NOT reading him a Miranda warning would accomplish."

      That is incorrect. Statements obtained prior to a reading of the Miranda warning are admissible in court if they fall under the public safety exception. Here is information from an FBI site:

      "The "public safety" exception to Miranda is a powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda."

      Hoo

      Delete
    13. @Hoo:

      The public safety exemption is an... exemption. That's the point. It allows the use of pre-Miranda statements to be used at trial in very limited circumstances.

      The best "public safety" use of Miranda is to not to Mirandize a suspect, if the suspect can be convicted at trial without introducing his statements as evidence. Without Mirandizing the suspect, he is free to discuss all aspects of his crime without jeopardy.

      Public safety is enhanced, and the suspect loses no rights.

      Why was Tsarnaev Mirandized? What did it accomplish? It did not give him new rights, and it did not protect established rights. It actually placed him in new jeopardy, and made him shut up and stop cooperating. Yet it did not make him more likely to be convicted-- he'll be convicted anyway, without his statements.

      Neither he nor we gained anything by the Miranda warning. And the public safety is certainly set back.

      Except now liberals can preen.

      Assholes.

      Delete
    14. Doc, no offense to you, but you do not understand the subject. Your brain has fossilized and lost the ability to learn.

      "The best "public safety" use of Miranda is to not to Mirandize a suspect..."

      That is not an option. A suspect must be read his Miranda warning before interrogation. An initial interrogation is allowed if there are public safety reasons. After that, the suspect is to be read a Miranda warning and given access to counsel.

      "if the suspect can be convicted at trial without introducing his statements as evidence."

      Once again (no use, really, lol), the Miranda rule is not there to help the prosecution; its there to help the suspect.

      "Without Mirandizing the suspect, he is free to discuss all aspects of his crime without jeopardy."

      That is not consequence-free if the public exception applies (as you seem to assert). Read the FBI explanation, doc.

      "Public safety is enhanced, and the suspect loses no rights."

      Wrong again. See the FBI explanation.

      "Why was Tsarnaev Mirandized?"

      That's how things are conducted in this country. Welcome to the free world, doc.

      Hoo

      Delete
    15. Yes, I’ll preen about our high standards, while conservative cowards beg that we throw the rules out the widow so they can feel a little less afraid.

      -KW

      Delete
    16. Mike,
      I understand what you mean about the advisory versus the rights and admissibility.
      My point is that I think this is an unwarranted use of this exception and at a very risky juncture.
      it's a bad call and a flagrant/wasteful show of post-event power by a security structure that has been caught with it's pant's down.
      Consider this from the perspective of the people trying to get any real intelligence out of this half dead POS - not just trying to cover the ass of those in control of security during the attack.
      We know the bomber was captured red handed (ad you note) by civilian authorities, in-country, and is a full citizen.
      He is also not much more than a kid at nineteen.
      Not even old enough to buy a beer or glass of wine in Mass. He did, however, live a very well financed and interesting life for a young immigrant. He is obviously a tool; a dupe.
      Ergo, the intel desired has to do with other cells contacts and handlers. We would need to go up the food chain to get results and damage whoever did this.
      His brother may have known more, but he is dead and cannot volunteer information.
      As someone tasked with it, you do need intelligence and this kid is your main human source (that we know of), but you need actionable stuff.
      If you're going to nail (or at least neutralize) the people who set this up; you need to find this critical intelligence without risking the criminal case. There are the obvious reasons for this of which some don't apply (ie your points re: red handed), and then there is the natural aversion to 'exceptions' being invoked. However, there is still also another aspect to this: Signals.
      So profound and so public a display is sending a signal for/to the people you're after.
      As a guy trying to get to the bottom of this, you do not want the people who ordered and financed these attacks going to ground, getting help....or worse.
      In order to get actionable stuff there is a real need not to reveal anything about how much you already know.
      Publicly pronouncing that your superiors are disregarding benchmark civil procedure sends signals. Those signals were, IMHO, most unwise to send.

      "The question is: why would anybody want the guy to shut up?"
      It not how much he says, Dr Egnor. It is the quality of what he does say.
      Personally, I hope he has lots to say and that it leads us to the people who backed and encouraged these tools to do their bloody work.
      But, I would be willing to bet there are plenty of people in important positions who would love to see 'closure' on this.

      "And regarding adherence to "procedure", adhering to procedure that does not protect rights and endangers the public is foolishness of a high degree."
      I would argue that dropping procedure in a grand display of administrative power at a critical juncture has been a much more intense display of foolishness than any suggestion I have made here - and on many more levels.
      Also, I must add: The cost of such a display could very well lead to more public endangerment over an extended period of time.

      Sorry, Mike. We're going to have to agree to disagree.




      Delete
    17. Crus:

      Mirandizing Tsarnaev simply makes no sense. Nothing is gained. Much could be lost. It is likely that Tsarnaev knows quite a bit.

      Three people are dead, and hundreds injured and mutilated because of idiotic law enforcement decisions. Why add another idiotic decision?

      I am not advocating that we torture him. I am simply advocating that we entice him to talk as much as possible. Who in their right mind wants this guy to be silent, especially when we don't need his statements to convict him?

      Let us pray that no innocents die because of this foolishness.

      Delete
    18. "Three people are dead, and hundreds injured and mutilated because of idiotic law enforcement decisions. "
      Because of upper level decisions made by civilian chiefs in your political capital. The cops just do what they're told. These are policy decisions that led to these clowns walking through cordons of security and up to the finish line with archaic, easily detected IED's.

      "Why add another idiotic decision?"
      It is not a decision they get to make.
      The police, by default, read the rights of suspects taken into custody. They have to be instructed to NOT read those rights.

      I will expand, if briefly. The reason I oppose ALL this use of executive power (not just the exception over Miranda) is that it is all theatre. Bad theatre.
      Also, you have to remember, people committed to this kind of violence do not care about life. I don't mean just the victims, but also of the bombers and their associates. The bombers are just tools to their handlers.
      No different than the blasting caps or bags.
      The handlers want a reaction.
      The bigger, the better.
      The more profound the changes we make to deal with them, the better.
      The way they will see this response is that they have forced our king, queen, and bishop from their squares, and all for a couple of pawns.
      That is what I oppose.

      There is a higher game already being played here. We know much more than we are admitting - and that is GOOD - but this is BAD theatre for the purpose of selling the American people something, not your enemies.
      Clarified: This whole response theatre (house to house, FLIR, curfews, closed bridges, martial law, lack of Miranda, ALL this flirtation with exceptions and executive powers...) is not aimed at the enemy.
      They're getting the reaction they want. The response is all about a show for the people at home. It's about selling your more (illusory) security in exchange for less liberty.

      "I am not advocating that we torture him."
      Nor would I, at least in his current condition. I would not even prop him up on a monitor for a judge at this point. He's not worth the blowback.
      He will serve his purpose as an example for other traitors.

      "I am simply advocating that we entice him to talk as much as possible. Who in their right mind wants this guy to be silent, especially when we don't need his statements to convict him?"
      I completely agree with the sentiment and motive of this statement, but totally disagree with Mr Holder's tactics with regards on how to achieve those ends.

      "Let us pray that no innocents die because of this foolishness."
      Let us pray that less innocents die because of this foolishness. Let us pray these men and those that sent them have been stopped in their tracks.
      I fear that praying that none should die would be asking too much of our Lord.
      For, as long as men have free will there will those among us who prey on the innocent as we have just seen in Boston and daily about the world. I pray we have the strength to stop them and still remain who we are in the end: Good and free peoples.

      Delete