Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev silent after read Miranda rights

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by benrl

 

Maybe next time there's a big public event, they'll do a quick looksie and have someone check in on the resident folks on the old terror watch list in the area....hmm????

You mean the list that is bloated and has anyone and everyone from children to the elderly? That is all we need; police rounding up "terror-watch-list" suspects before any major event.

Do we have railroads to these camps too?!

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by Sphota

 

"Sets bad precedent for you and me to not Mirandize him at all, seeing as how he is a citizen."

The presumption of innocence is not limited to citizens. The Bill of Rights makes no mention of "citizen."

I find it interesting that the media is saying that his mother "cannot accept that her sons are guilty." I saw this twice in the New York Times. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

I didn't mean to imply that opinion, at least, I don't hold it, but I have noticed that there is an undercurrent of belief in the US that we are a chosen people regarding our rights and liberties.

That being said, guilty or innocent, you still have to Mirandize - if anything, to protect those legitimately innocent.

I think the media has set a bad precedent as well. They have, time and again, set the verdict as though it was their responsibility. It's not mine, yours, the media's, or the arresting officer/s' job to pass legal judgment on the accused. The police can have reasonable suspicions and gather evidence. And the media can (but maybe shouldn't) release those suspicions to the general public, who, in a more enlightened society, should take a neutral stance, before an ordained party (judge/jury) is able to weigh the facts and testimony. Cable news is too impatient for judicial procedure.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


On retreading my post, I realize where the miscommunication is:

We're already on par with historical and contemporary police states, with a separate judiciary for a special class of "criminal" - ("enemy combatant").

When I said, "sets bad precedent...seeing as how he's a citizen," I was directly inferring the situation with Guantanamo and Black sites and the non-Article III courts. This has been a separate track for special cases - so far non-citizens. The next pitiful step will be the blurring and wholesale disappearance of the barrier that separates us citizens from that other judicial process. Once the barrier is tampered with, it will be hard to put the wall back up. And, in my opinion, the equalization of the two systems will center more with the current non-citizen system than anything like what we citizens currently consider (and take for granted as) constitutional rights and correct legal proceedings.

In other words, once the snowball starts rolling, it's harder and harder to go back up to where we started. Not mirandizing a US citizen in situations of serious accusations such as Boston sets the stage for the demonization of the innocent (look at the Elvis impersonator for how easily such "insta-guilt" can occur). This sets precedent to leave definitions open-ended and nebulous for words and terms like "national security exemption," "state's secrets privilege," "terrorism," "probable cause," "threat," and so on.

Originally posted by Sphota
That being said, guilty or innocent, you still have to Mirandize - if anything, to protect those legitimately innocent.

I can see what you are saying here but I think it is half the story. Miranda warnings are really not for the people who are being placed under arrest. They are for the officer(s) engaged and the interrogators there after. Miranda itself grants no Rights, establishes nothing new, that is already written and assumed under the Constitution.

Ignorance is no excuse, and in any case where you are being detained; claiming that you didn't know you could remain silent (the 5th Amendment portion of Miranda), is laziness. The Court recognized this laziness and to protect the States' interests when engaging in an arrest; Miranda warnings were born.

It's not mine, yours, the media's, or the arresting officer/s' job to pass legal judgment on the accused

Agreed, but part of a free-society, is the free flow of information. Granted, and I know it bugs many people who want to see all the evidence, the State or even the defense, is under no obligation outside of the Court of Law to present evidence. First, it taints the jury pool and second, it jeopardizes the case because of the first.

In this situation, the suspect, regardless if the Government invoked the "public safety" exception, could have remained silent and requested a lawyer. Nothing was stopping him from doing so.

And the media can (but maybe shouldn't) release those suspicions to the general public, who, in a more enlightened society, should take a neutral stance...

Agreed to an extent. Speculation and conjecture are a natural part of a free press (press not meaning the media, meaning the means of spreading information). The Government cannot inhibit information that is available. It doesn't mean that responsibility is thrown out the window for sure, but you cannot regulate that nor make law against it.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Agreed, good points. As far as Miranda is concerned, I just feel its good measure. Too many people are unaware of their rights and kowtow to authority out of mere symbolism (the implied social meanings of a uniform, badge or other such symbol). I think it's a good thing to remind people what they can and should expect. Also, I think it's a good exercise in maintaining the standards of our police force, even by rote, to have to pronounce such 'speech actions' (a la Austin, the linguist credited with this concept) each time a person is arrested.

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by EarthEvolves

 

On retreading my post, I realize where the miscommunication is:

We're already on par with historical and contemporary police states, with a separate judiciary for a special class of "criminal" - ("enemy combatant").

When I said, "sets bad precedent...seeing as how he's a citizen," I was directly inferring the situation with Guantanamo and Black sites and the non-Article III courts. This has been a separate track for special cases - so far non-citizens. The next pitiful step will be the blurring and wholesale disappearance of the barrier that separates us citizens from that other judicial process. Once the barrier is tampered with, it will be hard to put the wall back up. And, in my opinion, the equalization of the two systems will center more with the current non-citizen system than anything like what we citizens currently consider (and take for granted as) constitutional rights and correct legal proceedings.

In other words, once the snowball starts rolling, it's harder and harder to go back up to where we started. Not mirandizing a US citizen in situations of serious accusations such as Boston sets the stage for the demonization of the innocent (look at the Elvis impersonator for how easily such "insta-guilt" can occur). This sets precedent to leave definitions open-ended and nebulous for words and terms like "national security exemption," "state's secrets privilege," "terrorism," "probable cause," "threat," and so on.

Yeah, I hear ya'. It is amazing to me how "alleged" has been dropped from our lexicon when it comes to criminal trials. It has even bled in to domestic trials. Instead of trials by Jury we have trials by Grace (Nancy). It is really disgusting and pathetic.