Liberals, Please defend Miranda and Illegal search and seizure

[FatalError]

Time and time again people get away with what are sometimes ghastly crimes as a result of "technicality" not guilty verdicts, liberal judges decided people should be able to get away with crimes for no reason, and liberal judges today continue to uphold that

the limp wristed arm of justice?

[theweatherman]

If your rights are violated and that gets you off the hook then more power to you. The police and the courts know full well the limitations of their power. If they overstep the bounds then they lose, period.

For what its worth very few poeple get off on "technicallities." This is because in most cases the rights of the criminal are very carefully respected.

[QuadsOverQuads]

The Bill of Rights is meaningless if the state is not actually compelled to obey it.


q/q

[FatalError]

this is great when the person had some cocaine or something, but rapists and murderers receiving "more power to them" is ridiculous

[gostros]

[ QUOTE ]
this is great when the person had some cocaine or something, but rapists and murderers receiving "more power to them" is ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]

Example(s)?

If you blow enough smoke, expect to choke on it.

[iron81]

I don't think you care about the actual warning or illegal searches and seizures, but rather the fact that defendants sometimes get off. I'll start with the reason that we let that happen. Before Miranda, police routinely violated defendants' rights. They were beaten, subjected to coersive and unreliable interrogations and deprived of their right to an attorney. The courts of the time had ruled that these practices were unconstitutional, but these rulings were useless without some way to enforce them. The only means at the time was a civil suit against the police, and these typically cost more than the potential damages and so were rarely pursued. This changed after the Miranda decision and other decisions drawing from it. With Miranda, there was a clear set of rules regarding the volunariness of a confession. There was now a way to enforce the civil rights of a criminal defendant and give the police an incentive to uphold the rights of the defendant.

Second, Police departments nowadays actually support Miranda procedures. Under the law before Miranda, confessions still had to be voluntary. Unfortunately, determining whether a confession was voluntary at the time was largely subjective. It was difficult to predict whether a judge would rule a confession was voluntary. With Miranda, police have a clear set of guidelines when interrogating a suspect. As long as they dot their i's on the procedure laid out by the Supreme Court, a confession will likely be ruled voluntary and therefore admissible. Police departments like the certainty that comes with this procedure.

Third, it is actually rare for a defendant to walk on a technicality. I couldn't find the statistics, but my impression is that less than 5% of defendants walk on a technicality. And remember that just because a violation of Miranda has occurred doesn't mean that the defendant will walk. Under (unfortunate) Supreme Court rulings, a judge is allowed to find that a failure to follow procedure was a "technical" violation, which essentially allows the judge to ignore Miranda if he feels like it. Honestly, have you ever heard of any high profile defendant getting off on a technicality? I haven't. Law & Order doesn't count (although that show is awesome).

Also, its not just liberal judges that uphold Miranda. Miranda is the law of the land and conservative and liberal judges ascribe to it.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
The courts of the time had ruled that these practices were unconstitutional, but these rulings were useless without some way to enforce them. The only means at the time was a civil suit against the police, and these typically cost more than the potential damages and so were rarely pursued.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false, as you allude to later in your post. Pre-Miranda, any confession that was coerced was not admissible. Voluntariness of a confession could be challenged in court, at the trial level or on appeal. Miranda only changed the standards by which voluntariness was judged.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
Time and time again people get away with what are sometimes ghastly crimes as a result of "technicality" not guilty verdicts, liberal judges decided people should be able to get away with crimes for no reason, and liberal judges today continue to uphold that

the limp wristed arm of justice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Government sure does suck at everything.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[QuadsOverQuads]

<u>Miranda</u> simply held that police cannot take ignorance of a right as an affirmative waiver of that right.

In other words: the police must actually inform you of what your rights are before you can meaningfully waive them.

This is not a radical concept.


q/q

[MrMon]

Some of you guys don't have the story quite right, but no major errors. Here's the whole Miranda story from the current issue of American Heritage.

“You Have The Right To Remain Silent”

The irony behind Miranda is, his original rape conviction was overturned and his confession tossed, but on retrial, he was convicted anyway when his now ex-wife revealed that he had confessed to her and asked her to try to get the family of the victim not to press charges if he married the girl.

After being paroled in 1975, Miranda was stabbed to death in a bar fight in January 1976.