Speak up if you want to remain silent

[zsdersw]

Let's pretend I'm not. Let's say that the right to remain silent means you specifically invoke this right...

But what happens if you break it? Back in my scenario if I said "I'm gonna remain silent, kinda like that bitch I killed should have." Does the fact that you invoked your right invalidate everything you say after it? If so, for how long?

The fact is that this guy was mostly silent during interrogation, thus exercising his right. But he DID end up saying something incriminating. Just because he was silent so long doesn't mean it is invalid...it just means he crumbled to the technique. It sounds like the police did a good job.

This would be a different case if he said "I want a lawyer" and the questioning continued without the lawyer present.

You imply an argument where none exists.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

You imply an argument where none exists.

You asked if this sets a precedent and why you have to "speak to not speak." I am answering the question and I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on rights, "invoking" a right and excercising a right.

Anyhow, argument has been beaten to death and we do seem to be in agreement that there is no real precedent to be set and it is all silly.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The Constitution guarantees that you cannot be required to implicate yourself, yet that has somehow morphed into the requirement that the state actively help you avoid implicating yourself.

The concern is not that guilty people will implicate themselves. Rather, the concern is that innocent people will end up getting badgered into implicating themselves. If you lock a man in a room for 20 hours and don't allow him food or water or bathroom breaks and subject him to repeated questioning, good cop-bad cop techniques, and other mind games eventually he'll say something. I think that's the concern.

Remember, it seems like someone who was wrongfully convicted is cleared by DNA evidence about once a week. Those people who are exonerated are probably only a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of innocent people who are in jail.

You and I know that as a general rule you should NEVER talk to the police and NEVER say anything in a police interrogation because whatever you say can be twisted against you. However, laypeople probably don't understand that.

 

[zsdersw]

You asked if this sets a precedent and why you have to "speak to not speak." I am answering the question and I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on rights, "invoking" a right and excercising a right.

Anyhow, argument has been beaten to death and we do seem to be in agreement that there is no real precedent to be set and it is all silly.

Yes, and the way Justice Kennedy framed it is what was concerning.. which is why I hope you're right that he was just dumbing it down.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I would not be surprised to find those on the left wanting this murderer out of jail and $1M for his trouble. I'm thinking that half has no brain.

I suspect that people who think it was a bad decision want the government to prove its case using hard evidence other than a seemingly coerced confession which might be unreliable.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

The concern is not that guilty people will implicate themselves. Rather, the concern is that innocent people will end up getting badgered into implicating themselves. If you lock a man in a room for 20 hours and don't allow him food or water or bathroom breaks and subject him to repeated questioning, good cop-bad cop techniques, and other mind games eventually he'll say something. I think that's the concern.

Remember, it seems like someone who was wrongfully convicted is cleared by DNA evidence about once a week. Those people who are exonerated are probably only a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of innocent people who are in jail.

You and I know that as a general rule you should NEVER talk to the police and NEVER say anything in a police interrogation because whatever you say can be twisted against you. However, laypeople probably don't understand that.

This issue is about the 5th and 6th amendments, not police interrogation techniques. All the Miranda rights have to due with are the right to not implicate yourself and the right to counsel. That is it.

There is questioning and interrogation. Questioning is voluntary and you can leave at any time. Interrogation happens when there is probable cause to arrest you and you are now in custody. You cannot just leave, although you can be silent.

Now if interrogations are lasting 20 hours without bathroom breaks, food and water then other laws are being broken and that is a whole separate issue.

The point of interrogating is to try and get the truth from a suspect. Being that we all lie, it isn't as if the cops can sit you down and ask you "Did you do it" and expect to be done. That is why there are techniques, such as the Reid Technique, that use a variety of false premises and deceptions to elicit a confession. None are wrong and the psychology behind it is pretty solid.

Again, badgering someone for 20 hours without a bathroom break is cruel and illegal. Lying to them, playing mind games, etc. is all perfectly acceptable as you have to outsmart the criminal.

Anyone who confesses without a lawyer present should be scrutinized. There should be at least some physical or circumstantial evidence to back up the claim and ensure they weren't coached. At the very least maybe we should have a law that ALL official Mirandized interrogations are video taped.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, Moonbeam, and I'm sure it has something to do with how we all hate ourselves and some bullshit about a mask we wear and self loathing and some other unintelligible rant about fear.

I've read a lot of posts on here, Moonbeam, and you really make very little sense and add nothing to the conversation. I understand you think what you say is deep and intellectual, but it really isn't. It is almost like you just have a random hippy word generator that spews out this bullshit. You are like the annoying guy in the psychology class who thinks he understands it all and comes up with some philosophy or analogy and the professor ends up making fun of him because he is so deluded. Meanwhile you pat yourself on the back and think you are superior to everyone because YOU understand what you are saying and for some reason none of us do.

Please go away.

I would but where could I go to be so thoroughly entertained by idiots whose inferiority comes out in such exquisite poetry? You should remember that it's not your fault you don't know anything. You are just afraid to feel what you feel, and for good reason. To survive you had to be stupid and to awaken from you sleep would cause great pain, great freedom and wisdom in the end, but at first enormous pain. You will not want the red pill if you want to play it safe by being emotionally dead.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I am all for requiring video taping of interrogations. But why not also require the interrogators to ask whether or not someone wants to remain silent, consents to be interrogated, and wants an attorney? If someone says, "I will remain silent" that should be the end of it.

My concern is that innocent people, mostly non-lawyers, can be coerced and tricked into making statements that can be twisted against them resulting in the convictions of innocent people. The state should be able to prove its case without any testimony from defendants at all. If people have the right to remain silent it should not be difficult to exercise that right.

After hearing numerous stories over time about false convictions, prosecutorial misconduct, improperly-performed police lineups and photo identification, prosecutors withholding potentially exculpatory evidence from defendants, prosecutors essentially bribing other convicts and people for their testimony, and prosecutors seeking convictions at any cost regardless of innocence or guilt, I have concluded that our prosecution system needs to be completely revamped.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can get a self hating moron to confess to anything using the psychology of mental pain and anybody to confess to anything using it and physical pain.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

...
After hearing numerous stories over time about false convictions, prosecutorial misconduct, improperly-performed police lineups and photo identification, prosecutors withholding potentially exculpatory evidence from defendants, prosecutors essentially bribing other convicts and people for their testimony, and prosecutors seeking convictions at any cost regardless of innocence or guilt, I have concluded that our prosecution system needs to be completely revamped.

In the same stroke the defendant's lawyer may withhold evidence from the prosecution that proves them guilty...

So I say we have a broken justice system motivated by greed and job performance, not doing what is right and good for society.

Also, we are playing with peoples' lives here. How about any prosecutor who gets someone wrongly convicted is held accountable and gets disbarred?

I am of the mindset that ANYONE who is supposed to be a public servant (senator, president, judge, district attorney, etc.) should be barred from making any money above a certain limit (say, $80K/year.) This way the people who are altruistic and want to do a good job for the public can make a decent living, and those who see the public system as a way to further their personal careers and pocketbooks are left looking for other work. If we remove all monetary motivations and conflicts of interest our system would be much fairer.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

You can get a self hating moron to confess to anything using the psychology of mental pain and anybody to confess to anything using it and physical pain.

That is why we cannot use physical pain in our interrogations here on US citizens (waterboarding terrorists is a different story...)

Are you familiar with the Reid techniques? It is quite fascinating how it all works and follows nine simple steps. What I find most interesting is that the interrogator is suposed to show compassion and tell the suspect that they understand, that they know they didn't mean to commit the crime and help the suspect shift blame in their own mind in order to get a confession. The suspect is supposed to think the interrogator is compassionate and feels for them/

"I realize that she was cheating on you and you didn't mean to kill her. It isn't your fault."
"I know it isn't. I didn't mean to kill her; it just happend."
Confession.

Not everyone hates themselves, Moonbeam. That is the common theme in all of your posts. I don't think it reveals really anything about you other than your penchant for armchair psychology and your inability to think of other problems or themes. Self-hate is your fallback. Every goddamn one of your posts prattles on and on about this shit. It gets really old.

 

[Moonbeam]

That is why we cannot use physical pain in our interrogations here on US citizens (waterboarding terrorists is a different story...)

Are you familiar with the Reid techniques? It is quite fascinating how it all works and follows nine simple steps. What I find most interesting is that the interrogator is suposed to show compassion and tell the suspect that they understand, that they know they didn't mean to commit the crime and help the suspect shift blame in their own mind in order to get a confession. The suspect is supposed to think the interrogator is compassionate and feels for them/

"I realize that she was cheating on you and you didn't mean to kill her. It isn't your fault."
"I know it isn't. I didn't mean to kill her; it just happend."
Confession.

Not everyone hates themselves, Moonbeam. That is the common theme in all of your posts. I don't think it reveals really anything about you other than your penchant for armchair psychology and your inability to think of other problems or themes. Self-hate is your fallback. Every goddamn one of your posts prattles on and on about this shit. It gets really old.

Gosh, really, you are the first person who has ever complained they don't hate themselves, vehemently, I might add. I guess for some odd reason most people just know they hate themselves and you are in denial. I'll make a mental note to mention we hate ourselves more often so you can get up to speed.

Oh, and you do hate yourself and the reason you haven't the faintest idea is because you don't know what you feel. You wouldn't know or understand, but I didn't find out what I feel sitting on my armchair. That is a projection of your own mental condition. I don't create goddammed posts because I don't know what it feels like being goddamned. I have mentioned, have I not, that all your feelings of self worthlessness are lies? Another thing I figured our on my armchair.

The dog may bark, but the caravan moves on.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Gosh, really, you are the first person who has ever complained they don't hate themselves, vehemently, I might add. I guess for some odd reason most people just know they hate themselves and you are in denial. I'll make a mental note to mention we hate ourselves more often so you can get up to speed.

Oh, and you do hate yourself and the reason you haven't the faintest idea is because you don't know what you feel. You wouldn't know or understand, but I didn't find out what I feel sitting on my armchair. That is a projection of your own mental condition. I don't create goddammed posts because I don't know what it feels like being goddamned. I have mentioned, have I not, that all your feelings of self worthlessness are lies? Another thing I figured our on my armchair.

The dog may bark, but the caravan moves on.

Wow, Moonbeam, you have it all figured out. And I don't recall ever stating that I don't hate myself...just that not everybody does.

As far as I am concerned my feelings for myself don't need to be expressed or justified to you. I know where I stand, and it certainly isn't hate. My barometer is my children and my wife, and they think I am pretty fan-fuckin-tastic, thank you very much.

I am just saying, regardless of how I or anyone else feels, you sound like a broken record. Your enlightenment seems to be more of a charade. You rant about the same bullshit. The fact that most of your posts are interchangeable says a lot about your minimal mental capacity. If someone has a problem you can always bring it back to self-hate. I find it very odd...

Anyhow, cheers and have a good day reading another one of your pop-psychology novels.

 

[woolfe9999]

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Not too wild about the dissent's reasoning here. Sotomayor says the suspects are "legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so." The trouble is that remaining silent, under the majority's logic, is not a "waiver" in the legal sense of the word. To "waive" under the law means to give up a right. Yet in this context, if one remains silent, one has not given up the right. They have merely failed to invoke it so far. The right can still be invoked at any time. That is really the core of the issue here and why the majority is correct in this case.

- wolf

 

[nonlnear]

Not too wild about the dissent's reasoning here. Sotomayor says the suspects are "legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so." The trouble is that remaining silent, under the majority's logic, is not a "waiver" in the legal sense of the word. To "waive" under the law means to give up a right. Yet in this context, if one remains silent, one has not given up the right. They have merely failed to invoke it so far. The right can still be invoked at any time. That is really the core of the issue here and why the majority is correct in this case.

- wolf

Not to mention the right to remain silent when strictly construed is not really a right that needs to be invoked at all. Remaining silent is an exercise of that right. It is only within the setting of a trial that explicit invocation is a procedural requirement, because launching a tirade of unanswered questions could obviously sway a verdict even if the suspect (or whoever) remains silent. Outside of the trial setting it is sufficient to simply disallow footage of unanswered questions in order for the right to be protected. The fact that an apparent right to end an interrogation has been created by later case law (and reinforced by this verdict) is a bonus right that is in no way a necessary consequence of the Miranda rights.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

In the same stroke the defendant's lawyer may withhold evidence from the prosecution that proves them guilty...

Our system doesn't require defendants or testify against themselves or to present evidence that could incriminate them nor does it require their lawyers to do so.

Arrests and trials are not supposed to be "fishing expeditions" where people are forced to prove their innocence and to turn over any potentially incriminating evidence. Rather, in our sytem, the state is supposed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the police don't have sufficient evidence and need evidence produced by the defendant then what cause do they have to arrest and to prosecute the defendant in the first place?

So I say we have a broken justice system motivated by greed and job performance, not doing what is right and good for society.

I agree.

Also, we are playing with peoples' lives here. How about any prosecutor who gets someone wrongly convicted is held accountable and gets disbarred?

I am all for disbarment in the case of blatant prosecutorial misconduct (as opposed to a legitimate difference of legal opinion about what exactly needs to be turned over).

I am of the mindset that ANYONE who is supposed to be a public servant (senator, president, judge, district attorney, etc.) should be barred from making any money above a certain limit (say, $80K/year.) This way the people who are altruistic and want to do a good job for the public can make a decent living, and those who see the public system as a way to further their personal careers and pocketbooks are left looking for other work. If we remove all monetary motivations and conflicts of interest our system would be much fairer.

Interesting idea.

 

[werepossum]

The concern is not that guilty people will implicate themselves. Rather, the concern is that innocent people will end up getting badgered into implicating themselves. If you lock a man in a room for 20 hours and don't allow him food or water or bathroom breaks and subject him to repeated questioning, good cop-bad cop techniques, and other mind games eventually he'll say something. I think that's the concern.

Remember, it seems like someone who was wrongfully convicted is cleared by DNA evidence about once a week. Those people who are exonerated are probably only a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of innocent people who are in jail.

You and I know that as a general rule you should NEVER talk to the police and NEVER say anything in a police interrogation because whatever you say can be twisted against you. However, laypeople probably don't understand that.

But this ruling in no way changes that. All it says is that failure to answer some questions does not automatically invoke your rights against self-incrimination for you. Remember, you have a constitutional right to not be forced to provide testimony against yourself; you do NOT have a constitutional right to not be questioned lest you implicate yourself. There are myriad reasons why someone might not be talking at the moment, yet may begin speaking later. One could be in shock from hearing about the crime itself. One might have been at a lover's house at the time of the crime and therefore hesitant to reveal an alibi, yet still be willing to answer questions - just reluctant to answer that particular question. And asking for a lawyer will still instantly end long and abusive interrogation, as no lawyer is going to allow his client to be so treated - as will a simple statement invoking your Fifth Amendment rights.

Also, people cleared by DNA evidence are almost overwhelmingly in prison due to eyewitness testimony, not self incrimination.

For reference, the body of the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note that the Amendment is actually silent on being questioned, but has been extended by SCOTUS to include a right to not be forced during questioning to divulge any information which might tend to incriminate you (and would certainly be used against you in court as if you were saying it in court.) There is no special protection for stupid people.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not to mention the right to remain silent when strictly construed is not really a right that needs to be invoked at all. Remaining silent is an exercise of that right. It is only within the setting of a trial that explicit invocation is a procedural requirement, because launching a tirade of unanswered questions could obviously sway a verdict even if the suspect (or whoever) remains silent. Outside of the trial setting it is sufficient to simply disallow footage of unanswered questions in order for the right to be protected. The fact that an apparent right to end an interrogation has been created by later case law (and reinforced by this verdict) is a bonus right that is in no way a necessary consequence of the Miranda rights.

Quite correct. I would call the "bonus" right an implicit adjunct right - the right not to be badgered with questions - which has been granted as a means of discouraging the abridgement of the core right to remain silent. Yet there is never a waiver even of that right, as it can still be affirmatively invoked at any time. Hell, it can even be invoked after the suspect speaks, but decides he doesn't want to talk any more, and doesn't want to be badgered. There is never a waiver of either the core right or the adjunct right, under any circumstances. It isn't even possible under the majority framework. There is only a possible failure to exercise it on the part of a suspect, and a new condition has been set to exercise the adjunct right only, but no condition has been set to "waive" either right.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

Apple Of Sodom: Wow, Moonbeam, you have it all figured out.

M: Indeed so and if you didn't feel so inferior yourself it wouldn't bother you, but you have spent a lifetime keeping your head down least somebody call you a narcissist or some such, so naturally any duck that raises its head tends to draw fire. I have taken shot, my dear friend, long before you got annoyed. I have been, as it were, not only through the mill but though the grindstones as well and my ego is of a dust size that makes it pretty hard to kill.

AOS: And I don't recall ever stating that I don't hate myself...just that not everybody does.

M: I have it all figured out, remember. You didn't have to.

AOS: As far as I am concerned my feelings for myself don't need to be expressed or justified to you.

M: Don't pretend to yourself that is what for which I was asking. I simply said you do not know what you feel. I know that is true and you do not because I know somebody else who used to be in exactly the same state of denial who found out what wrong is all about.

AOS: I know where I stand, and it certainly isn't hate.

M: You do not have the faintest idea. You do not know what you feel. I didn't tell you this to be smarter than you or because I lack creativity. I told you because I know and you do not. And I told you not because I am your enemy, which is also what you feel, but because you do not know who your real enemy is, as I am about to exemplify for you:

AOS: My barometer is my children and my wife, and they think I am pretty fan-fuckin-tastic, thank you very much.

M: My dear Sir, do not pretend to yourself that I would wish it any other way then that they love and respect you or that they should not or that I want to take that away. All those feelings you create about me are the truth of what you feel, that your love and respect are in some state of threat. Of course they are, but the danger to you is your own self hate, not anything coming from me and let me provide you with examples of why your barometer isn't the right one. And for the love of God, do not call what your family feels for you fuckin-tastic. Do not degrade the complement you pay yourself out of feeling you deserve only unrefined praise. Say to yourself that you are fantastic in their eyes. I know your fantastic because I am.

It is wonderful to be in love and to have a family and I hope for you it stays that way. But let me just remind you of something. How often do you read about some male like yourself who has just killed his wife or girl friend and even all the kids? Does it happen every day, many times a day, and why. Sorry, but that tired old truth that reveals my lack of creativity, by its very truth must again rear its ugly head.

These are men like you, with no self hate what so ever, who, like you are somebody because they are somebody is somebody else's eyes, and who suddenly are plunged into what they really feel, that they are too worthless to deserve love, but of course they will not feel that feeling or have any idea it is there. What happens is that they go into the denial called rage and kill the cause that made them question their adequacy.

And if, my dear Sir, you have an alternative view, let me be the first to say that your view will prove to be the pop psychobabble, not mine.

So, my dear Sir, do not build you castle on sand. Do not test the love of others from doubts of self worth, and know that the greatest threat to relationship is the feeling that anybody who loves you must be a fool. Trust me. I am farther beyond you in understanding than you can possibly imagine.

AOS: I am just saying, regardless of how I or anyone else feels, you sound like a broken record.

M: Again, you project on me what you fear is true of yourself, that you are or will be a broken record. You have been put down for that. But think about it, Sir. A record that isn't broken is only a longer version of the same thing, over and over again. I have seen into my self hate and do not now need your approval. I speak the same truth over and over again because it is a truth that applies to everything and I can see the application. And the freedom from the absurd norms that straight jacket you is why I want you to also see. What you call annoying is the key to your freedom. You can't fix your self hate without knowing you feel it, dear friend.

SOB: Your enlightenment seems to be more of a charade.

M: It should, it is a creation of your own mind. Any enlightenment I have would be beyond what you can see.

SOB: You rant about the same bullshit. The fact that most of your posts are interchangeable says a lot about your minimal mental capacity. If someone has a problem you can always bring it back to self-hate. I find it very odd...

M: You have to churn cream for a long time before the butter appears.

SOB: Anyhow, cheers and have a good day reading another one of your pop-psychology novels.

M: Thank you, but as i have everything already figured out I have no need to read anything but the human heart, right?