Miranda warning protects culprits and associates rather than protecting the innocent suspects! Do you agree?

[Sushan]

It may have its pros like preventing the innocent from being brutally treated, protect them from taking wrong confessions which are made under threats and the wrong party being punished in court cases. But I think this is used more frequently by the professional criminals to just manipulate the police and their interrogations, and they know that police can do nothing more than just questioning. And the lawyer who will present at the time of interrogation will support this not with the best interest of the police, but of his client. By this way I think the criminals are mostly benefited by this rather than the innocent. What do you think?

I think that you have no actual hands-on experience with these matters and watch too much TV. You don't know what you are talking about and are dead wrong.

Gee

I am not an American citizens, not a lawyer, and not even a Police officer. So I am not fully aware about the legal system and this particular law. But I am from a certain background to know very well that nothing will come out from a practiced person unless you ask it using more than just words.

[Sushan]

This practice was included with the intention of protecting the innocent suspects from the questionings by the police which can sometimes be unjust as well as barbaric (a popular secret).

I don't know what 'popular secret' means, but police procedure of that kind very often leads to coerced confession and wrongful conviction. A lot of those people are sentenced to death. This, by me, is not a good thing.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-iss ... y-innocent

I agree with most of your post, but wanted to address your link in particular. Many states do not have the death penalty, but reading this link reminded me of an article that I read a few years ago. I wish I knew how to find it again, because I would post it here. Most of us view science as being something that we can trust because it is so accurate, but the article I read was about Texas, which has the death penalty, and about a science lab they were using for DNA testing. Apparently the lab in question through poor training or sloppy procedures was producing results that were found to not be accurate. The people investigating the lab found that it had given doubtful evidence in more than a few cases that had been on death row, and in some cases the results were proven wrong. There was speculation about how many people may have been wrongfully put to death, but the Judicial branch was not willing to open that can of worms.

Thank you for posting the above.

Gee

I would like to know whether that mistakes have happened recently. Science and scientific findings are not hundred percent accurate. But there are things with a accuracy percentage which is near to hundred, and DNA testing is one of such things. The only occasion that DNA can objectively direct you to a wrong person is when identical twins are involved. Maybe that particular DNA lab had some corrupted officials rather than having poor technology or untrained personnel.

[Sushan]

Quite clearly, the Miranda warning protects only the very ignorant or very stupid. Anyone of normal intelligence who owns a TV and has watched cop shows knows about the Miranda warning, and knows that he can request a lawyer and that anything he says can be used against him.

Or the very naïve. Most intelligent people understand that TV shows are fantasy -- not real life. In real life, people who follow the rules and are law abiding citizens do not get rousted by the police. If you are innocent, you are not going to be convicted of a crime, or so we think -- but it happens. Innocent statements can be interpreted in a lot of different ways especially if you do not even know what crime is being investigated -- and they don't tell you.

One of my daughter's friends once complained to me that a cop stopped him and did not read him his rights while searching his car and looking for drugs. He was very angry at being so abused and denied his rights (He was 16). I smiled at him and explained that he didn't have any rights. He argued that he had Miranda rights. I explained that Miranda rights are civil rights, so they only apply after a person has reached the age of majority. Before that you have about the same rights as a dog -- to be fed, educated, housed, provided with medical care when needed, etc.

This is why I did not let my children drive until they were 18 years old, because the police know that 16 and 17 year old kids do not have rights. I did not want them to have to deal with traffic cops without me there.

I think it's reasonable to provide mentally handicapped people (the only ones who benefit from the Miranda warning) with the same protections everyone else is already aware of.

This sounds good, but how do you know who is mentally handicapped? There have been too many stories about people, who were handicapped in some way and shot by policemen for not obeying the order to "stop" or "put your hands up" or something like that. My own aunt, who was 76 years old, had a gun pulled on her at the airport because she set off the alarm before boarding the plane, but she did not stop when the security people told her to -- she actually ignored them. My mother, who was with my aunt, kept yelling, "She's deaf." "She's deaf." but no body was listening. I suppose we were lucky that she didn't get shot, or knocked down. Yes, we need every right that a "suspect" can have.

Gee

In the first case, why did the police officer searched the car instead of fining the kid for driving without a license? (From where I am from we get a license only when we are 18+)

In the second case I think the police acted in the best interest of the rest of the people in the airport, as it might well have been a person just acting like a deaf poor old fellow.

Nothing is prefect including the legal system. Otherwise the judges won't have to depend on previous judicial decisions to judge certain cases.

[Pattern-chaser]

Naturally we shouldn't convict people for crimes that they didn't commit. However, I'm guessing that the problem is perhaps less severe than it appears. Suppose a professional mafia hit man who has murdered a dozen people is finally convicted of a murder someone else committed? Is that so horrible?

Horrible? Not sure. Unjust? Yes, in the sense that the law has not been correctly implemented, and someone has been punished for a crime they didn't commit. You are taking a God's-eye-view here, when you give as an example a man whose guilt of crimes, past and present, is known to you already: "a professional mafia hit man who has murdered a dozen people".

[Ecurb]

Horrible? Not sure. Unjust? Yes, in the sense that the law has not been correctly implemented, and someone has been punished for a crime they didn't commit. You are taking a God's-eye-view here, when you give as an example a man whose guilt of crimes, past and present, is known to you already: "a professional mafia hit man who has murdered a dozen people".

Of course it is true that the defendant has been punished for a crime he didn't commit. But if "just" means "morally right and fair" I'm not so sure it is "unjust". Obviously, I am taking the "God's-eye-view, but since it's a hypothetical that is probably true in many incorrect guilty verdicts, the hypotheticaL is reasonable.

[Ecurb]

One more thing: I'm not advocating for incorrect "guilty" verdicts. I'm just pointing out a factor in examining them.

[Gee]

It may have its pros like preventing the innocent from being brutally treated, protect them from taking wrong confessions which are made under threats and the wrong party being punished in court cases. But I think this is used more frequently by the professional criminals to just manipulate the police and their interrogations, and they know that police can do nothing more than just questioning. And the lawyer who will present at the time of interrogation will support this not with the best interest of the police, but of his client. By this way I think the criminals are mostly benefited by this rather than the innocent. What do you think?

I think that you have no actual hands-on experience with these matters and watch too much TV. You don't know what you are talking about and are dead wrong.

Gee

I am not an American citizens, not a lawyer, and not even a Police officer. So I am not fully aware about the legal system and this particular law. But I am from a certain background to know very well that nothing will come out from a practiced person unless you ask it using more than just words.

Well, I am an American citizen; I am not a lawyer, but have studied law and have worked in law for many years; I am not a Police officer, but have dealt with the police on many different levels over the years.

The first thing that you should consider is that the Miranda laws are not new rights. Everyone here seems to think that this is a new law giving rights that previously did not exist. The Miranda warning is just an extension/explanation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution -- criminals, repeat criminals, already know about these rights -- so it doesn't give them anything. Regular citizens (innocents) think that the Fifth Amendment applies after being in Court, while sitting in the Witness box and stating that they want to take the Fifth. Why do they think this? Because they watch TV, and that is how it is portrayed on TV. In reality we have a right to shut up and not help the Police build a case against us.

I never studied the Miranda law, but assume that there was an innocent female named, Miranda, who helped the police build a case against her, through her ignorance of her own rights. It must have been bad in order to cause this law to be written in her name. Anyone, who has not done so should watch the link that Sculptor provided on Page 2 or 3 of this thread. It is very educational.

Other things you might want to know:

You have a right to a jury trial -- sure if you remember to send your Request for Jury Trial in to the Court with your Answer to Complaint. If you forget to send it, you may well Waive your right to a jury trial -- at least in Michigan.

You are innocent until proven guilty -- Ha Ha Ha, LMAO. You are innocent until suspected.

You are charged with a crime, but subsequent information releases you, and it never gets to Court. Because you were released and it never went to Court, your record is clean -- right? No. Any policeman, who runs your ID through his computer will find your name and the crime that you were originally charged with. It does not matter that it was a mistake. You are now a suspect anytime that type of crime is attempted in your vicinity. You may well be picked up merely because of your proximity to the crime -- as I stated, "Innocent until suspected." Your record will remain this way until you pay an attorney to expunge the record, which will build every time you are picked up. (They will say, where there is smoke there is fire) This is another way that the problem is systemic, as people who live in a high-crime area, will always have some kind of record no matter how innocent they may be -- unless they can afford an attorney.

An attorney will be appointed for you. IF the crime you are charged with is punishable with jail time, you might get an attorney, who might be worth having -- it depends.

As Miranda learned, when you deal with the police, get an attorney.

Gee

[GE Morton]

I never studied the Miranda law, but assume that there was an innocent female named, Miranda, who helped the police build a case against her, through her ignorance of her own rights. It must have been bad in order to cause this law to be written in her name.

Ernesto Miranda was a male convicted of kidnapping and rape of an 18 year-old woman. He confessed to the crime after 2 hours of police interrogation, without being advised of his right to remain silent and to an attorney. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but SCOTUS reversed, announcing what came to be known as the Miranda ruling. Miranda was re-tried, and this time did not confess. He was convicted nonetheless, after his roommate testified that he had admitted the crime to her. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison, but released on parole 5 years later. Four years after being released he was killed in a bar fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

[Gee]

This practice was included with the intention of protecting the innocent suspects from the questionings by the police which can sometimes be unjust as well as barbaric (a popular secret).

I don't know what 'popular secret' means, but police procedure of that kind very often leads to coerced confession and wrongful conviction. A lot of those people are sentenced to death. This, by me, is not a good thing.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-iss ... y-innocent

I agree with most of your post, but wanted to address your link in particular. Many states do not have the death penalty, but reading this link reminded me of an article that I read a few years ago. I wish I knew how to find it again, because I would post it here. Most of us view science as being something that we can trust because it is so accurate, but the article I read was about Texas, which has the death penalty, and about a science lab they were using for DNA testing. Apparently the lab in question through poor training or sloppy procedures was producing results that were found to not be accurate. The people investigating the lab found that it had given doubtful evidence in more than a few cases that had been on death row, and in some cases the results were proven wrong. There was speculation about how many people may have been wrongfully put to death, but the Judicial branch was not willing to open that can of worms.

Thank you for posting the above.

Gee

I would like to know whether that mistakes have happened recently. Science and scientific findings are not hundred percent accurate. But there are things with a accuracy percentage which is near to hundred, and DNA testing is one of such things. The only occasion that DNA can objectively direct you to a wrong person is when identical twins are involved. Maybe that particular DNA lab had some corrupted officials rather than having poor technology or untrained personnel.

I would also like to know about mistakes that have happened, but do not know what agency monitors these things. I doubt this idea, but if we are talking about corrupted officials, then we are talking about money. So, hypothetically, if we are talking about corruption, then we have to ask which would pay better, finding more people guilty or finding more people not guilty? I certainly don't like that idea. You want to know what scares me? Talk of defunding the police. I can't think of a better way to cause corruption.

Almost 20 years ago, I became the guardian of a very pretty 15 year old girl. She had been raped in another city by a person, who was associated with that City, and told that he was training her to become a prostitute. This was not long after Detroit had voted in gambling and a number of local Cities started prostitution rings -- prostitution and gambling often go together. She got away from the guy and contacted her older sister, who was dating a Police officer. They took her down to the local hospital to have a rape kit done on her. When I finally got her, she was terrified. The Police from the city where it happened kept calling me and implying that the girl was lying and that I would get in trouble for supporting her story. I started putting them on speaker phone whenever they called. They did not seem even slightly worried that there was evidence against them.

Eventually, the case was dropped and never went to Court, I got the girl into a group home for sexually abused women and she got her first "B" in math and history. I eventually learned that there were hundreds, maybe thousands, of rape kits that were never processed because there was no money for it. So if you could pay for your own processing, great, if not then it just stacked up with the others.

Gee

[Gee]

Quite clearly, the Miranda warning protects only the very ignorant or very stupid. Anyone of normal intelligence who owns a TV and has watched cop shows knows about the Miranda warning, and knows that he can request a lawyer and that anything he says can be used against him.

Or the very naïve. Most intelligent people understand that TV shows are fantasy -- not real life. In real life, people who follow the rules and are law abiding citizens do not get rousted by the police. If you are innocent, you are not going to be convicted of a crime, or so we think -- but it happens. Innocent statements can be interpreted in a lot of different ways especially if you do not even know what crime is being investigated -- and they don't tell you.

One of my daughter's friends once complained to me that a cop stopped him and did not read him his rights while searching his car and looking for drugs. He was very angry at being so abused and denied his rights (He was 16). I smiled at him and explained that he didn't have any rights. He argued that he had Miranda rights. I explained that Miranda rights are civil rights, so they only apply after a person has reached the age of majority. Before that you have about the same rights as a dog -- to be fed, educated, housed, provided with medical care when needed, etc.

This is why I did not let my children drive until they were 18 years old, because the police know that 16 and 17 year old kids do not have rights. I did not want them to have to deal with traffic cops without me there.

I think it's reasonable to provide mentally handicapped people (the only ones who benefit from the Miranda warning) with the same protections everyone else is already aware of.

This sounds good, but how do you know who is mentally handicapped? There have been too many stories about people, who were handicapped in some way and shot by policemen for not obeying the order to "stop" or "put your hands up" or something like that. My own aunt, who was 76 years old, had a gun pulled on her at the airport because she set off the alarm before boarding the plane, but she did not stop when the security people told her to -- she actually ignored them. My mother, who was with my aunt, kept yelling, "She's deaf." "She's deaf." but no body was listening. I suppose we were lucky that she didn't get shot, or knocked down. Yes, we need every right that a "suspect" can have.

Gee

In the first case, why did the police officer searched the car instead of fining the kid for driving without a license? (From where I am from we get a license only when we are 18+)

Here they give you a driver's training course while you are still in high school, so a 16 or 17 year old can have a license. If the law hasn't changed, even 14 and 15 year old kids can get a restricted license to drive farm equipment, tractors and such, which sometimes have to go on the road while moving between fields. The kids need to know the rules of the road.

If the kid had not had a license, he would not have been fined, his car would have been towed away to the impound and he would have been arrested. What I am wondering is why he was stopped in the first place. He did not mention getting a ticket. Were the Police profiling? Stopping him because of his age?

In the second case I think the police acted in the best interest of the rest of the people in the airport, as it might well have been a person just acting like a deaf poor old fellow.

You are rationalizing and have changed my Aunt into a "poor old fellow". I don't think she would appreciate that. So you are saying that it is OK to terrify and old fellow in order to satisfy the paranoia of the crowd?

I have been around deaf people all of my life and can assure you that they are rarely aggressive or even assertive. Do you want to know why? It is because they KNOW that their disability keeps them out of the loop. So they observe more and are slower to react.

Nothing is prefect including the legal system. Otherwise the judges won't have to depend on previous judicial decisions to judge certain cases.

There are many kinds of law; such as, Constitutional law, Legislative law, Common law, and Case law. Every time a judge determines a case, s/he is either confirming a law (case law) expanding a law, or maybe generating new law, because his/her Judgment IS law -- Case law. So it is not as much a case of depending on "previous judicial decisions" as it is making sure that the decisions are in agreement, or if not in agreement, there is an explanation as to why this is so.

Gee

[Gee]

Horrible? Not sure. Unjust? Yes, in the sense that the law has not been correctly implemented, and someone has been punished for a crime they didn't commit. You are taking a God's-eye-view here, when you give as an example a man whose guilt of crimes, past and present, is known to you already: "a professional mafia hit man who has murdered a dozen people".

Of course it is true that the defendant has been punished for a crime he didn't commit. But if "just" means "morally right and fair" I'm not so sure it is "unjust". Obviously, I am taking the "God's-eye-view, but since it's a hypothetical that is probably true in many incorrect guilty verdicts, the hypotheticaL is reasonable.

I don't think that the "hypothetical" is at all reasonable. How many "professional mafia hit men, who have murdered a dozen people" actually exist???

How about this hypothetical, if a man is convicted of a crime he did not commit, how many of his friends and relatives will know that there has been an unjust trial? What about the man who actually did the crime, how many of his friends and relatives will know that there has been an unjust trial? If you add them up and then multiply that number by 20 innocents in jail, then how many people have learned to distrust the law? How many distrust the Police? The Courts? How long will it take before people will start shooting the Police? The Police will start shooting at shadows. The citizens and the Police will become enemies, so what do you think of this hypothetical? Is it reasonable?

Gee

[Gee]

I never studied the Miranda law, but assume that there was an innocent female named, Miranda, who helped the police build a case against her, through her ignorance of her own rights. It must have been bad in order to cause this law to be written in her name.

Ernesto Miranda was a male convicted of kidnapping and rape of an 18 year-old woman. He confessed to the crime after 2 hours of police interrogation, without being advised of his right to remain silent and to an attorney. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but SCOTUS reversed, announcing what came to be known as the Miranda ruling. Miranda was re-tried, and this time did not confess. He was convicted nonetheless, after his roommate testified that he had admitted the crime to her. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison, but released on parole 5 years later. Four years after being released he was killed in a bar fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

Thank you for the information. I know better than to assume.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

Horrible? Not sure. Unjust? Yes, in the sense that the law has not been correctly implemented, and someone has been punished for a crime they didn't commit. You are taking a God's-eye-view here, when you give as an example a man whose guilt of crimes, past and present, is known to you already: "a professional mafia hit man who has murdered a dozen people".

Of course it is true that the defendant has been punished for a crime he didn't commit. But if "just" means "morally right and fair" I'm not so sure it is "unjust". Obviously, I am taking the "God's-eye-view, but since it's a hypothetical that is probably true in many incorrect guilty verdicts, the hypotheticaL is reasonable.

It seems to me that your "hypothetical" is just a way of side-stepping the process of justice and law that we have put into place. Hypothetically, you assert as a given that the man is guilty of past crimes for which he was never tried. If he was suspected of such crimes, surely our response should be to bring him to court to face these charges? By 'hypothetically' assuming and asserting his guilt, you have abrogated the legal process of justice.

So please let's be honest. Your claim, as your words describe it, is that many men who are found 'guilty' of crimes they did not commit are actually guilty of other, untried, crimes. And so they may "reasonably" be wrongfully convicted because they may have committed other crimes in the past.

I do not accept that this is a "reasonable" position. In fact, I assert that it is an unreasonable position. And it is unjust.

[Pattern-chaser]

One more thing: I'm not advocating for incorrect "guilty" verdicts. I'm just pointing out a factor in examining them.

Your words and tone seem to suggest that you are not advocating for incorrect guilty verdicts, but you are trying to justify them. You offer reasons why such verdicts might be 'just' and 'reasonable', but they are neither. Your words support, and excuse, incorrect 'guilty' verdicts, or so it seems to me, as I read your words.

[Ecurb]

I'm not trying to justify them. I am merely explaining what I guess is a fact about them: many of the incorrect guilty verdicts convict mafioso, gang members, and career criminals. I leave it to my (doubtless many) readers to decide whether the burglar convicted of a particular burglary incorrectly, in part because he had the tools of his trade in his car, is as bad as convicting some random person of the same burglary. I'll grant that both are bad.