Speak up if you want to remain silent

[highland145]

I'm surprised that the conservatives of this thread would choose to empower the police state rather than the individual. Wait, no, I am not. What am I thinking, that 1/2 the people here actually have 1/2 a brain?

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.

 

[nonlnear]

I'm surprised that the conservatives of this thread would choose to empower the police state rather than the individual. Wait, no, I am not. What am I thinking, that 1/2 the people here actually have 1/2 a brain?

How exactly does this ruling empower the police state? All it says is that a suspect who makes no mention of remaining silent, and who DOES NOT REMAIN silent can't have their statement thrown out after the fact because they might have wanted to remain silent - but didn't.

 

[MJinZ]

How exactly does this ruling empower the police state? All it says is that a suspect who makes no mention of remaining silent, and who DOES NOT REMAIN silent can't have their statement thrown out after the fact because they might have wanted to remain silent - but didn't.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

"But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.'

*cough *cough *cough. Ahem. Burp. Oh shit, I'm not remaining silent.

^ Self-explanatory.

The case used for this example is irrelevant. Yes, obviously, the guy did not remain silent and gave himself away during the interrogation.

The implications of the RULING however, means that anyone can remain silent but still be interrogated and implicated, even when one operates under the LOGICAL assumption that they can not.

 

[nonlnear]

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"

"But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.'

*cough *cough *cough. Ahem. Burp. Oh shit, I'm not remaining silent.

^ Self-explanatory.

What is self explanatory? That you have gas?

 

[MJinZ]

So, the solution is clear - the Miranda Warning must be modified to include the statement that "You must explicitly (verbally) invoke your right to be silently.".

 

[Infohawk]

Meh this isn't that big of a deal.

 

[nonlnear]

and now for the edit:

The case used for this example is irrelevant. Yes, obviously, the guy did not remain silent and gave himself away during the interrogation.

How exactly is the case irrelevant? The case is specifically instructive when interpreting the ruling, unless the ruling contains explicitly general statements.

The implications of the RULING however, means that anyone can remain silent but still be interrogated

Yes, of course they can be interrogated.

and implicated,

And even implicated - if they CONFESS

even when one operates under the LOGICAL assumption that they can not.

How is this ludicrous claim a "logical assumption"?

 

[theeedude]

Don't civics teachers teach their students to not talk to cops anymore?

 

[MJinZ]

What is self explanatory? That you have gas?

No, the point is that "silent" can not be taken so literally.

You can nod, shake your head, write things down - all of these are "remaining silent".

You can also sneeze, cough, etc and break your silence.

 

[nonlnear]

No, the point is that "silent" can not be taken so literally.

You can nod, shake your head, write things down - all of these are "remaining silent".

You can also sneeze, cough, etc and break your silence.

Yes, and you can also confess to the crime and that is breaking your silence (in the legal, if not the literal sense) too.

 

[MJinZ]

and now for the edit:
How exactly is the case irrelevant? The case is specifically instructive when interpreting the ruling, unless the ruling contains explicitly general statements.

Wow... the Naiveté is strong within you.

The case is irrelevant because the ruling IS explicitly general. I quoted the ruling already.

"But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer."

Yes, of course they can be interrogated. And even implicated - if they CONFESS

Of course they can be interrogated? (we are talking about the the right to NOT be interrogated here, in case you were drifting off from the subject)

Implicated? After being lead by your nose, goaded, taunted, and verbally abused?

This is is difficult to explain to someone with such a naive view of authority. You think they're going to hold your hands and nicely ask you to be honest, rather than play tricks and try to force confession out of you, whether or not you are under psychological duress, or even can clearly understand or hear the questions they're asking you?

How is this ludicrous claim a "logical assumption"?

The logical assumption is that you are exercising your right to be silent.

Not to be verbally waterboarded and psychologically assaulted while you're doing so so you can trip up and say or do something stupid.


But then again, why am I explaining all of this when this is clearly self-explanatory? :hmm:

 

[ichy]

So, the solution is clear - the Miranda Warning must be modified to include the statement that "You must explicitly (verbally) invoke your right to be silently.".

Or you could just, you know, not talk...

 

[Mursilis]

2. If this ruling is precedent-setting, it's quite dangerous IMO. Why should something inherent need to be deliberately invoked?

Of course it's precedent-setting; the only question is, how much so?

 

[MJinZ]

Or you could just, you know, not talk...

Wow, again, my comment about the 1/2 people with 1/2 brains...

The case and ruling just went way over your head didn't it?

 

[MJinZ]

Of course it's precedent-setting; the only question is, how much so?

Probably not much at all if the Miranda Warning is revised to explain very clearly that one must invoke the right to be silent so that they stop bothering you.

 

[nonlnear]

Wow... the Naiveté is strong within you.

The case is irrelevant because the ruling IS explicitly general. I quoted the ruling already.

No, you quoted a layperson's one sentence synopsis of the ruling - and you are calling me naive?

Of course they can be interrogated? (we are talking about the the right to NOT be interrogated here, in case you were drifting off from the subject)

Actually we are not. The right NOT to be interrogated is not a Miranda right at all. Yet for all the supposed terror of this ruling, it is a right that this ruling further enshrines as one of the bulwarks of robust defense-favoring police procedures.

Implicated? After being lead by your nose, goaded, taunted, and verbally abused?

Hey I don't like it either, but if your stupid enough to open your mouth (after not requesting a lawyer)...

This is is difficult to explain to someone with such a naive view of authority.

It's cute how you keep saying naive.

You think they're going to hold your hands and nicely ask you to be honest, rather than play tricks and try to force confession out of you, whether or not you are under psychological duress, or even can clearly understand or hear the questions they're asking you?

Of course they are going to lie their asses off and try to trick you. They are cruel heartless bastards in the interrogation room and I would expect nothing less of them - which is why I wouldn't sit in an interrogation room without a lawyer.

The logical assumption is that you are exercising your right to be silent.

No, that is a fanciful inference.

Not to be verbally waterboarded and psychologically assaulted while you're doing so so you can trip up and say or do something stupid.

If you have a problem with the way police twist interrogations, you should direct your energies more directly at that problem. It's a separate question.

But then again, why am I explaining all of this when this is clearly self-explanatory? :hmm:

Perhaps because you were wrong. Not to mention that this entire "explanation" of yours did nothing to bolster your case.

 

[irishScott]

Wow... the Naiveté is strong within you.

The case is irrelevant because the ruling IS explicitly general. I quoted the ruling already.

"But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer."



Of course they can be interrogated? (we are talking about the the right to NOT be interrogated here, in case you were drifting off from the subject)

Implicated? After being lead by your nose, goaded, taunted, and verbally abused?

This is is difficult to explain to someone with such a naive view of authority. You think they're going to hold your hands and nicely ask you to be honest, rather than play tricks and try to force confession out of you, whether or not you are under psychological duress, or even can clearly understand or hear the questions they're asking you?



The logical assumption is that you are exercising your right to be silent.

Not to be verbally waterboarded and psychologically assaulted while you're doing so so you can trip up and say or do something stupid.


But then again, why am I explaining all of this when this is clearly self-explanatory? :hmm:

lol verbally waterboarded and psychologically assaulted? As you've pointed out, any person with half a brain knows the police will lie and deceive to get a conviction. So just keep your mouth shut, glare if you wish, and assume that anything they tell you is a lie. Not that hard. It's amazing how many people fail to execute this simple concept. Even under severe psychological trauma. Hell once could argue (depending on the nature of said trauma) that it's actually easier to shut up and ignore people in that state.

I'm sorry, but if you're too weak and naive to do a simple thing like not listen and keep your mouth shut, and you give a false confession, you deserve to have to dig your way out of it. It's your fault you confessed, not the cops'. Request a lawyer and your phone call if you're that bad off.

 

[irishScott]

Probably not much at all if the Miranda Warning is revised to explain very clearly that one must invoke the right to be silent so that they stop bothering you.

Lol they don't have to stop bothering you. They can interrogate your silent mug just as if you were talking. What world do you come from?

 

[Gunslinger08]

Much ado about nothing. You still have the right to remain silent. They can't compel you to say anything - even to say that you don't want to talk. All the Supreme Court did was clarify that you can't stay silent for a while then start talking and claim you invoked your right to stay silent.

 

[MJinZ]

No, you quoted a layperson's one sentence synopsis of the ruling - and you are calling me naive?
Actually we are not. The right NOT to be interrogated is not a Miranda right at all. Yet for all the supposed terror of this ruling, it is a right that this ruling further enshrines as one of the bulwarks of robust defense-favoring police procedures.
Hey I don't like it either, but if your stupid enough to open your mouth (after not requesting a lawyer)...
It's cute how you keep saying naive.Of course they are going to lie their asses off and try to trick you. They are cruel heartless bastards in the interrogation room and I would expect nothing less of them - which is why I wouldn't sit in an interrogation room without a lawyer.

No, that is a fanciful inference.
If you have a problem with the way police twist interrogations, you should direct your energies more directly at that problem. It's a separate question.

Perhaps because you were wrong. Not to mention that this entire "explanation" of yours did nothing to bolster your case.

WRONG.

Miranda IS the right to not be interrogated (right to be silent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona#Decision

"The Court also made clear what had to happen if the suspect chose to exercise his rights:

If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."


To the new Supreme Court, indicating through actually being silent for an extended amount of time is just not enough apparently to be exercising the right to be silent.

Looks like in some cases, words do speak louder than actions.

 

[MJinZ]

lol they don't have to stop bothering you. They can interrogate your silent mug just as if you were talking. What world do you come from?

usa.

 

[Fern]

I also don't see the problem here.

He was told his rights (right to remain silent, right to an attorney); and he claimed to have understood them.

IANAL, but my understanding is:

1. If you ask for a lawyer they must stop questioning you until the lawyer is present.

2. If you don't ask for the lawyer, you still have the right to remain silent, i.e., not answer questions.

It seems to me that you excercise the right to remain silent by not answering. Simple as that. In this case he decided to answer.

This case looks more like an effort to expand the right to remain silent. Expand it in such a why as to prevent police from asking any further questions upon a suspect's refusal to answer any single question. This expansion would effectively preclude questioning of all suspects but those who wanted to confess immediately. IMO, that's unreasonable.

It would also blur the distinction between the right to the lawyer and remaining silent such that they were effectively the same - preventing further questioning by police. It's illogical to have two seperate rights that are effectively the same. If they are the same, they need not be distinguished into two seperate rights.

Fern

 

[MJinZ]

I also don't see the problem here.

He was told his rights (right to remain silent, right to an attorney); and he claimed to have understood them.

IANAL, but my understanding is:

1. If you ask for a lawyer they must stop questioning you until the lawyer is present.

2. If you don't ask for the lawyer, you still have the right to remain silent, i.e., not answer questions.

It seems to me that you excercise the right to remain silent by not answering. Simple as that. In this case he decided to answer.

This case looks more like an effort to expand the right to remain silent. Expand it in such a why as to prevent police from asking any further questions upon a suspect's refusal to answer any single question. This expansion would effectively preclude questioning of all suspects but those who wanted to confess immediately. IMO, that's unreasonable.

It would also blur the distinction between the right to the lawyer and remaining silent such that they were effectively the same - preventing further questioning by police. It's illogical to have two seperate rights that are effectively the same. If they are the same, they need not be distinguished into two seperate rights.

Fern

Wat.

1) Correct

2) Correct.

It seems to me that you excercise the right to remain silent by not answering. Simple as that. In this case he decided to answer.

I agree, but the Court did not.

The right to remain silent is not the simply the right to *literally to not open your mouth*.

It is the right to not be coerced into somehow incriminating oneself, truthfully or otherwise. That includes the right to not be further interrogated, which is to say, verbally assaulted.

This case looks more like an effort to expand the right to remain silent. Expand it in such a why as to prevent police from asking any further questions upon a suspect's refusal to answer any single question. This expansion would effectively preclude questioning of all suspects but those who wanted to confess immediately. IMO, that's unreasonable.

Incorrect, this is just the opposite.

This case serves to constrain the right to remain silent, because now you have to demand it/invoke it.

This case now increases the possibility of police coercing a confession - most importantly, one that is usable in court - from people who have little understanding of their rights, have little educations, or are easily broken psychologically and mentally.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
This case serves to constrain the right to remain silent, because now you have to demand it/invoke it.

This case now increases the possibility of police coercing a confession - most importantly, one that is usable in court - from people who have little understanding of their rights, have little educations, or are easily broken psychologically and mentally.

Sounds to me like you're saying the right to remain silent has two parts:

1. The right more simply described as the right to remain silent/not answer any or all questions.

2. A right to not be questioned at all (similar to how the to right to an attorney serves to terminate questioning).

Now, if the right to remain silent ("RTRS") can be #2 above, and I have no problem if a suspect proclaiming "I wish to remain silent" causes questioning to cease, is it too much to ask that they must expressly claim that right to cause all questioning to cease?

Aren't they required to expressly claim that they want to see a lawyer in order to cease all questioning under that aspect of Miranda?

(Based soley on the article here) I still think that if the court would have ruled otherwise the mere refusal to answer any single question would have precluded police from asking any further questions. That strikes me as unreasonable.

Fern

 

[MJinZ]

Sounds to me like you're saying the right to remain silent has two parts:

1. The right more simply described as the right to remain silent/not answer any or all questions.

2. A right to not be questioned at all (similar to how the to right to an attorney serves to terminate questioning).

Now, if the right to remain silent ("RTRS") can be #2 above, and I have no problem if a suspect proclaiming "I wish to remain silent" causes questioning to cease, is it too much to ask that they must expressly claim that right to cause all questioning to cease?

Aren't they required to expressly claim that they want to see a lawyer in order to cease all questioning under that aspect of Miranda?

(Based soley on the article here) I still think that if the court would have ruled otherwise the mere refusal to answer any single question would have precluded police from asking any further questions. That strikes me as unreasonable.

Fern

No, read Miranda vs Arizona (I linked it above). Right to remain silent is the right to both not incriminate one's self and the right to not be forced to incriminate oneself (through coercive techniques).

It makes total sense, as it is akin to the right to be safe from bodily harm, but if you press a knife or gun into their hands and force someone to kill themselves, that doesn't mean they've waived their rights to be free from harm, or that you are not responsible for their deaths.

It was a 5-4 rule. 5 of them ruled in what you opined to be unreasonable.

But like I mentioned, this is really about tilting the power towards either the individual or the Police State. Unless they modify the Miranda Warning appropriately.