Miranda "rights"

[AndrewR]

With the recent Supreme Court decision shedding some light on Miranda, it brought something to mind. Since ignorance of the law is no defense to a crime, why is ignorance of your most fundamental rights a defense to confession?

That doesn't quite appear correct, to me. Any ideas?

 

[403Forbidden]

AndrewR,

I think the jist of the decision says that cops must warn arestees of their right to remain silent...

There is an unsual relationship between a cop and an arrested suspect.
In that situation, cops are in a position of superiority. Most people in that situation will do whatever a cop says. So if a cop says "spill the beans now" most people would.

Now if a cop came up to a suspect, and the suspect just started talking out of the blue, thats fine...no Miranda violation. But once the cop places a person under arrest, that's when the cop/arrestee relationship begins.

 

[jaydee]

403Forbidden is right.

 

[Ornery]

403Forbidden be liken criminals. Bummer if the SOB "spills the beans." If the POS wasn't guilty in the first place, there wouldn't be any damn beans to spill, would there?

The fukken criminals have more GD rights than law abiding citizens. THAT HAS GOT TO CHANGE!!! :|

Edit:

Oops forgot... 'nuff said

 

[Double Trouble]

Andrew: Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. The idea behind the miranda warnings is that one can easily be placed in a very vulnerable position during questioning and interogation. It that setting, it doesn't take much for an investigator or cop to coerce someone into making a statement or confession. Our legal system does not allow for confessions to be made under duress or coersion. The Miranda ruling means that the person being questioned must be made aware of their rights, cutting down on coerced confessions.

I agree with the court -- if the police are not able to do their job once suspects are made aware of their constitutional rights, there's something wrong with the way they are going about doing their job.

Of course, there's a downside. Countless perfectly good confessions have been thrown out over Miranda technicalities such as the arresting officer misreading a word of the miranda rights :| That's taking it too far in my opinion. The court should simply look at whether the suspect was made aware of what his or her rights were, not at the minor details.

 

[AndrewR]

You're missing the point of my question, however. Why is it that ignorance of the law is not a defense to a crime while ignorance of a VERY BASIC AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY KNOWN Constitutional right is a defense to an allegedly "forced" confession?

So, if someone is ignorant of a little used law that applies in a certain fact situation, they can be convicted of a crime. If that same person is ignorant of their most basic rights in the face of government authority, we let them go free if they fail to exercise those rights and are not "reminded" of them.

Essentially, we're saying to people that you don't need to have any civic responsibility for your own well-being. As Ornery says, if there wasn't something to tell, the person would be fine. A criminal goes to jail for their ignorance -- not of the law, of their rights. Is it the fault of the police that the perp is stupid?

 

[Double Trouble]

<<You're missing the point of my question, however>>

You seem to have missed mine

<<VERY BASIC AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY KNOWN Constitutional right is a defense to an allegedly &quot;forced&quot; confession?>>

You're missing the point. The court is not saying that one's ignorance of the law is a defense. The court acknowledges that an interrogation or questioning, even when done in a perfectly legal manner, can be very intimidating to any individual. What about if a cop tells you that you can make a statement off the record? Is that possible? Once you've been read your Miranda rights, you should know that ANYTHING you say can be used against you, so there's no such thing as 'off the record'.

To avoid having millions of court cases of people claiming they were under duress when they confessed, or that they were coerced into making statements, the court simply made a rule that the person in custody be made aware of their rights in that particular situation. It would be a very sad state of affairs when the government has to be afraid of citizens being aware of their rights.

 

[AndrewR]

I know the Court isn't saying that ignorance of the law is a defense, because it's well established law that it is not. I am comparing the two doctrines and noting an inconsistency.

I understand the concerns that the Court has with confessions and police power. However, your following statement most interests me:

<< Once you've been read your Miranda rights >>

.

Why do the police have to ensure your awareness of your rights when it should be part of your duty as a citizen to be fully cognizent of your country's Consitution? There wouldn't be countless claims of coercion if the Court simply said that if you don't know your rights, that's your problem, not the police department's.

I mean, who hasn't seen NYPD Blue??

 

[FettsBabe]

Andrew is right. There is a serious inconsistency.