• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: AAjax
"The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present"

"The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present."




Wow, just go's to show you never trust a politician (or their staff) with high approval ratings.

This is quite sad, hope it dosent go through.
Awhile back I saw this TV news report where the French PM was sitting on the backseat of a taxi cab when they turn on the anti-robber electric feature. Mr Obama needs to install something similar to his Oval Office desk chair. So when he does stupid shit like this he gets 10,000 volts across his ass.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Hacp
I agree with Obama. The rights granted to use through the Constitution should be whole-heartily be annulled. Change we can believe in!
Please describe what right is being annulled, be specific.
It isn't an annulment, but it is troubling and not to be written off.

Scenario which I'm sure will happen.

Police: You talk to us or you are going to be in real trouble. Talk now to keep your teeth.

Suspect: Er, ok just don't hurt me.

Police: Good boy.


Later-
Police: Suspect decided he wanted to talk to us without an attorney.

Attorney to client: You're screwed.


Now if you don't think this can happen, then I suggest you can forget about warrantless wiretaps. You can trust the government after all.


Really bad idea.
They can already do that today by simply claiming that he didn't ask for a lawyer. It is perfectly legal for the police to question a suspect without an attorney present; the case in question simply says that they can't question someone who has explicitly requested an attorney.

I imagine that if the cops are willing to threaten smashing someone's teeth in if he doesn't answer questions, they wouldn't have much of a problem lying and saying that the guy didn't ask for a lawyer. Or simply fabricating a confession.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,974
848
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I won't defend it, but I'm not exactly up in arms about it either. It's not like any defendants are forced to answer any questions without their lawyer present, it just makes it possible for the police to ask them.

Seems like it opens up the possibility for police to abuse people who are unaware of their rights, and I don't like that. It's not really an OMGPOLICESTATE thing though.
This.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,117
24,673
136
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Did you read my other post in this thread? I already said I opposed this.

As already stated though, this stuff happens even without this change. If police officers are willing to threaten suspects with physical violence (which everyone knows is illegal) what would make you think they would be worried about being accused of asking them a question without their lawyer present?

This is something I dislike as a matter of course, because I am extremely distrustful of all police power. That being said, I hardly consider this a large infringement of our constitutional rights.
Then why seek the change?
Because what I just described is illegal, and I sincerely doubt that the administration is going to be endorsing illegal actions by the police.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
I don't think anyone agrees with Obama on this issue.

With that being said... this is definitely one of those topics that makes me smile from a P&N perspective. Replace the name Obama with anyone else and this thread would be 100 pages long filled with some of the most extreme rhetoric imaginable. Ah P&N... how I love you. :)
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
Originally posted by: boomerang
It starts with small things.
exactly. this is (kinda) small.

add in that he is having the goverment take over banking and one auto manfuacture...


personally i don't like how all the "small" things are adding up
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
Thought this was an appropriate thread to post this link to a great website about knowing your rights when dealing with the police. The issue at hand is that people who don't know their rights can be more easily coerced by police, especially if Obama gets what he wants here. But ultimately we all gotta take care of ourselves, and this is a great website with a lot of helpful information.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

21. Are police allowed to lie?

Yes. Police are generally permitted to lie if it helps them make arrests. The best example of this is when undercover officers claim not to be police. The rules regarding entrapment usually tip in favor of law-enforcement, so police won?t hesitate to trick you into incriminating yourself or others. This is particularly common during interrogations in which officers might tell you that ?your friend already gave you up, so you might as well come clean.?

The best defense against these manipulative tactics is to avoid saying anything to police without first speaking with an attorney.
THAT is why you don't open your mouth until you have an attorney in the room with you. Great website that boils down to two main courses of action:
- When encountered by the police, ask specifically if you are being detained, or if you are free to go.
- If you are being detained, don't say anything until you have presence of counsel.
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
I don't endorse this in any way, but if it must be then I suggest they stipulate that any interrogation must be video recorded for verification.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its somewhat of a hairsplitting argument, especially since the Miranda warnings proceed everything, but my position is to oppose Obama on this because it somewhat grants the police a license to badger and harass anyone even suspected of a crime. Its a very slippery slope argument that almost invites sleep deprivation as a tactic. And because it will change many other legal precedents, its another slippery slope.

Hopefully the court will refuse to hear the case or decide against granting this Obama position.
If Bush could use "aggressive interrogation techniques" against our anemies, why can't we institute that method against our own population to get confessions out of 17 year olds with some pot residue? /sarcasm
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its somewhat of a hairsplitting argument, especially since the Miranda warnings proceed everything, but my position is to oppose Obama on this because it somewhat grants the police a license to badger and harass anyone even suspected of a crime. Its a very slippery slope argument that almost invites sleep deprivation as a tactic. And because it will change many other legal precedents, its another slippery slope.

Hopefully the court will refuse to hear the case or decide against granting this Obama position.
If Bush could use "aggressive interrogation techniques" against our anemies, why can't we institute that method against our own population to get confessions out of 17 year olds with some pot residue? /sarcasm
"WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR!!?!?"
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Not only should the police be able to interrogate someone without the attorney present, but they should be able to waterboard suspects to elicit confessions because that's merely an enhanced interrogation technique. If the person is innocent being subject to waterboarding won't make them confess since it's not really torture and people don't say false things to avoid being waterboarded since it's only mildly unpleasant and could even be refreshing on a hot day such as today, lawdy lawdy lawd.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,928
1,097
126
Basically this comes down to I understand and can partially agree with the Obama administration's position on this. But not fully agree because it's also a flawed position. It makes sense that if someone chooses to talk then that information should be usable. At the same time it often could occur that someone is coerced or tricked into talking without a lawyer present. So while I agree the administration has a good point and a good argument, the bad in my opinion outways the good. This law should be left as is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY