Speak up if you want to remain silent

[Lemon law]

No, lets call this SCOTUS ruling for exactly what it is, a complete reversal of a precedent established by Gidion. Hopefully after we get rid of one of the activist judges in gang of four, in terms of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, SCOTUS can swiftly reverse a whole pile of stinking thinking rulings, that have become what amounts to just a temporary anomaly in the larger history of SCOTUS.

Right now, IMHO, SCOTUS is stuck on stupid, and in the silly season, expect crap as a norm.

 

[werepossum]

This guy is clearly guilty, but what about the next guy? Why is the inherent right to remain silent no longer inherent and must be explicitly invoked? Why do you have to talk in order to avoid talking?



Do you honestly believe this? Such black-and-white hyperbole is beneath you, werepossum.

You do not have to talk in order to avoid talking. In fact, if you do not talk you automatically have maintained your right to remain silent. What you cannot do is speak and then take it back because you had the right to not speak. Again, the State cannot force you to implicate yourself, but neither does it have an unlimited responsibility to help you not implicate yourself.

Admittedly that was hyperbole, but it's hyperbole well supported by reality. Only progressives are concerned that the State doesn't have to help you not implicate yourself; only progressives are concerned that criminals might not know their rights or have the discipline to stick to them. Conservatives are concerned with criminals being caught, stopped, and punished. This is true almost across the board; only when people like President Bush or Karl Rove are concerned are progressives really concerned with whether or not a person is guilty. No, I'm wrong - progressives want these people imprisoned regardless of whether or not they have actually broken any laws.

Exhibit A:

SNIP
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.

 

[Jaskalas]

The case before the court and the actual ruling appear to be apples and oranges. There are details missing here that I cannot piece together.

At face value, remaining silent is a right and I will stand by that.

 

[MJinZ]

You do not have to talk in order to avoid talking. In fact, if you do not talk you automatically have maintained your right to remain silent. What you cannot do is speak and then take it back because you had the right to not speak. Again, the State cannot force you to implicate yourself, but neither does it have an unlimited responsibility to help you not implicate yourself.

Admittedly that was hyperbole, but it's hyperbole well supported by reality. Only progressives are concerned that the State doesn't have to help you not implicate yourself; only progressives are concerned that criminals might not know their rights or have the discipline to stick to them. Conservatives are concerned with criminals being caught, stopped, and punished. This is true almost across the board; only when people like President Bush or Karl Rove are concerned are progressives really concerned with whether or not a person is guilty. No, I'm wrong - progressives want these people imprisoned regardless of whether or not they have actually broken any laws.

Exhibit A:

You sir are Lulz worthy. Not even worth my time on further elucidating on the significant amount I've already done in this thread.

 

[werepossum]

You sir are Lulz worthy. Not even worth my time on further elucidating on the significant amount I've already done in this thread.

Great, I dodged a bullet of fail.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

If you don't say it, they can't read your mind.

Or just sit silent through the interrogation. Obviously this guy didn't remain silent enough. Implicated himself.

that's what I was thinking. either say you don't understand your rights and seek clarification (or hell, write it out), or stay silent. seems fair to me that unless you say "I WANT A LAWYER", or you explicitly and unambiguously indicate that you don't understand your miranda rights and seek clarification, law enforcement can ask questions.

 

[nonlnear]

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.

You do realize that nothing you quoted indicates a right to end an interrogation, right? Your quote only states that if an individual requests an attorney, then the attorney must be present for any subsequent interrogation. It's quite a different matter altogether from the right of a detainee (with or without a lawyer) to simply end an interrogation.

edit:Let me lay it out in a little more detail to save some more back and forth.
The Miranda rights allow a detainee to choose ONE condition of their interrogation: whether or not they have a lawyer present. That's it. As soon as that condition is met, the police/DA/whoever are free to interrogate them as long as is reasonably allowed by the guidelines for that jurisdiction (which I'll grant you often allow too much latitude, especially when it comes to length of interrogations, sleep deprivation, etc.). A person can choose not to respond through the entire thing (and if they have an attorney present, the attorney can better represent them to that end if they happen to squirm/flinch/etc. - which is another reason to always have an attorney present), but the right to end an interrogation if a detainee doesn't feel like being there is a separate question entirely - and it is a right which simply is not part of the Miranda rights when taken on their face. The fact that a defense attorney can (sometimes) say "This interview is over"is more a matter of professional courtesy and understanding (the understanding that if the defense attorney is going to continue to invoke the right to silence no matter what that the investigators would be better off hitting up a Krispy Kreme than wasting their time pounding the table) than a "right" per se. However there is nothing in the wording of the Miranda rights that says the police are not allowed to choose to waste their time with continued questioning if they so choose.

 

[zsdersw]

You do not have to talk in order to avoid talking.

So long as this ruling does in no way change that, I have no problem with it.

Admittedly that was hyperbole, but it's hyperbole well supported by reality.

If that were true it wouldn't be hyperbole. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Okay, let's say that the mere act of remaining physicially silent is enough to invoke your right to remain silent and end interrogation, as some of you would like.

1) How long must one remain silent before it is assumed that they are invoking their right vs. thinking out options and responses?

2) What if the person is a mute and cannot talk?

3) If you invoke your right to remain silent, and then later incriminate yourself, does it count in the court of law? For example, if you said "I'm not saying anything else until I get a lawyer. I invoke my right to remain silent, just like that bitch who I just killed shoulda remained silent." Does this count as a confession since it was preceded by invocation of the right to remain silent?

 

[ichy]

No, lets call this SCOTUS ruling for exactly what it is, a complete reversal of a precedent established by Gidion.

Do you even know what you're talking about? Gideon was about the right to a free lawyer if you're indigent, it had nothing to do with the right to remain silent.

 

[nutxo]

Okay, let's say that the mere act of remaining physicially silent is enough to invoke your right to remain silent and end interrogation, as some of you would like.

1) How long must one remain silent before it is assumed that they are invoking their right vs. thinking out options and responses?

2) What if the person is a mute and cannot talk?

3) If you invoke your right to remain silent, and then later incriminate yourself, does it count in the court of law? For example, if you said "I'm not saying anything else until I get a lawyer. I invoke my right to remain silent, just like that bitch who I just killed shoulda remained silent." Does this count as a confession since it was preceded by invocation of the right to remain silent?

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/miranda_rights.html#Q1

 

[NesuD]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37448356/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/



Two things stand out, for me:

1. This guy is a complete idiot. If he wanted to remain silent he shouldn't have answered any questions and, literally, should've been totally silent.

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

I don't see what is so dangerous about it. He was duly informed of his Miranda rights but did not to invoke them. Using your reasoning the police would be obligated to get him a lawyer even if he does not request one. Exercising your right to counsel requires that you ask for a lawyer. Once you do that the interrogation stops until legal counsel arrives. He did not ask for a lawyer or remain silent after he was informed of his right to do so. I don't see the problem here. He opened his mouth and implicated himself even after being informed that he did not have to answer any questions. He did not ask for a lawyer even after being informed of his right to do so. If you have to inform the police you want a lawyer to have the interrogation stop, then why should you not have to say to them that you wish to remain silent to end the interrogation?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/miranda_rights.html#Q1

So, the "right to remain silent" basically lets a criminal remain silent without the post-Miranda silence being used against him. The suspect can at any time choose to speak, or not to speak. If he does speak it can be used against him. If he doesn't speak it cannot be used against him. It isn't a single choice you make, such as ordering an item from the menu.

"Yes, I'll have the silence please."
"Very good, sir."
"Ahh, what the hell. I have a confession."
"I'm sorry sir; you have already chosen silence and you cannot change your mind."

It seems pretty simple to me. The right to remain silent simply protects you from having your silence used as evidence against you. The cops may even try to persuade you to speak. They may use the Reed interrogation technique. But never can they use your "right to remain silent" against you in a criminal proceeding.

To summarize: It doesn't put you in a protected class, or even force interrogation to be halted, but rather protects you from your silence being used against you.

So in this particular case, the man in question remained literally silent for 3 hours. The Miranda rights allow him to do so, and the attorneys cannot use this silence against him in court. But when he finally did say something it was admissable.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

So long as this ruling does in no way change that, I have no problem with it.

I think what this ruling establishes is that just because you are silent for a period of time does not mean that the interrogation must stop or that any confession after the period of silence is not admissable.

The right to remain silent simply states that you have a right to be silent and that your silence cannot be used as evidence against you.

Now if he asked for an attorney and the interrogation continued without the attorney then there would be a problem. Continuing to ask questions to someone who is simply not talking is acceptable as the cops try to coax a confession out. It is called good police work.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't see what is so dangerous about it. He was duly informed of his Miranda rights but did not to invoke them. Using your reasoning the police would be obligated to get him a lawyer even if he does not request one. Exercising your right to counsel requires that you ask for a lawyer. Once you do that the interrogation stops until legal counsel arrives. He did not ask for a lawyer or remain silent after he was informed of his right to do so. I don't see the problem here. He opened his mouth and implicated himself even after being informed that he did not have to answer any questions. He did not ask for a lawyer even after being informed of his right to do so. If you have to inform the police you want a lawyer to have the interrogation stop, then why should you not have to say to them that you wish to remain silent to end the interrogation?

The danger comes if remaining silent through the entire interrogation is no longer sufficient to indicate your desire to remain silent; that you must, in effect, talk in order to avoid talking.

Requesting a lawyer does not have any irony associated with it.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

The danger comes if remaining silent through the entire interrogation is no longer sufficient to indicate your desire to remain silent; that you must, in effect, talk in order to avoid talking.

Requesting a lawyer does not have any irony associated with it.

That is silly. "Talk in order to avoid talking." The right to remain silent doesn't mean you have to literally be silent. It means you do not have to answer questions and implicate yourself and that your refusal to remain silent on the subject cannot be used as evidence.

You can ask to go to the bathroom (talk) with and still avoid the question. Or you can answer some questions but not others. Maybe you want to tell them your name and address but nothing more...

Silent = silent on the issues at hand, not literally silent altogether.

Edit: Further, if the idiot wanted to remain silent he shouldn't have confessed. Again, all the right does is protect your silence from being used against you. Silent, with a lawyer, or without, it doesn't matter: the cops still have the duty to interrogate you and can hold you for a certain amount of time before having to let you go. Being silent or getting a lawyer doesn't automatically mean the interrogation stops.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

 

[zsdersw]

That is silly. "Talk in order to avoid talking." The right to remain silent doesn't mean you have to literally be silent. It means you do not have to answer questions and implicate yourself and that your refusal to remain silent on the subject cannot be used as evidence.

You can ask to go to the bathroom (talk) with and still avoid the question. Or you can answer some questions but not others. Maybe you want to tell them your name and address but nothing more...

Silent = silent on the issues at hand, not literally silent altogether.

None of which was ever in dispute. So long as you can express your desire to remain silent (whether by being literally silent or silent about the issues at hand.. through the entire interrogation) without having to explicitly say so, there's no problem.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?

Edit: Further, if the idiot wanted to remain silent he shouldn't have confessed. Again, all the right does is protect your silence from being used against you. Silent, with a lawyer, or without, it doesn't matter: the cops still have the duty to interrogate you and can hold you for a certain amount of time before having to let you go. Being silent or getting a lawyer doesn't automatically mean the interrogation stops.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

Further, no one said anything contrary to what you listed.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

None of which was ever in dispute. So long as you can express your desire to remain silent (whether by being literally silent or silent about the issues at hand.. through the entire interrogation) without having to explicitly say so, there's no problem.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?



Further, no one said anything contrary to what you listed.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?

You're really grasping. I don't even know why you started this thread.

You can remain silent for as long as you want. It doesn't mean the interrogation will stop and at some point if you break your silence then it is still admissable. It doesn't set any sort of precedent.

You asked:

This guy is clearly guilty, but what about the next guy? Why is the inherent right to remain silent no longer inherent and must be explicitly invoked? Why do you have to talk in order to avoid talking?

There is nothing to be invoked about silence. Simply stated if you remain silent it cannot be used against you. There is no invocation. And even if you state "I wish to remain silent" and "invoke" that right doesn't mean interrogation has to stop.

I have the right to freedom of expression...I don't have to invoke something to take advantage of that right, I just do it. Or not. Either way is fine.


Edit:

Think of it this way. During an interrogation there may be times of talking and times of silence. If you are ever silent on a question, for example, the prosecutor cannot use that silence as evidence of guilt in court. So maybe you answer a bunch of questions, and then get uncomfortable and don't answer a few of them...you have that right and nothing can be done to force the answers out of you nor can your failure to answer be used against you.

In this case the man was mostly silent but did answer yes or no to a few questions. The questions he was silent on mean nothing and cannot be used. The questions he did answer will be used against him. It is simple.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is best just to torture a confession out of the silent. Nobody gets arrested if they aren't guilty anyway. Just presume they are guilty and get the confession one way or another. We don't lock up enough people now as it is.

 

[zsdersw]

You're really grasping. I don't even know why you started this thread.

Then I don't know why you bothered posting in it.

There is nothing to be invoked about silence. Simply stated if you remain silent it cannot be used against you. There is no invocation. And even if you state "I wish to remain silent" and "invoke" that right doesn't mean interrogation has to stop.

Justice Kennedy apparently disagrees:

""Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.""

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

It is best just to torture a confession out of the silent. Nobody gets arrested if they aren't guilty anyway. Just presume they are guilty and get the confession one way or another. We don't lock up enough people now as it is.

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.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Then I don't know why you bothered posting in it.



Justice Kennedy apparently disagrees:

""Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.""

I think that is Justice Kennedy's way of dumbing it down for everyone. A right is something that just is and that does not need to be invoked. You have the right to practice a religion of your choosing...do you ever remember specifically invoking this right? I have the right to bear arms...I don't ever recall invoking this right. I just went out and bought a gun and that was that.

If it were so simple to cut off interrogation by stating "I will remain silent" then why is anyone ever interrogated? Couldn't every criminal simply state "I'll be silent" and forgo interrogation? And wouldn't that make the process useless?

Edit: And I am unaware of any "right to cut off questioning." Nowhere in the Miranda rights does it say anything about this. Could someone please point me to the law that states we have the right to cut off questioning when we have been taken into custody? Sure the length of questioning can vary and needs to be reasonable but there is no right to "end it."

 

[zsdersw]

I think that is Justice Kennedy's way of dumbing it down for everyone. A right is something that just is and that does not need to be invoked.

I hope you're right.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

A murderer stays in jail... seems like a good outcome to me.

Retarded moral relativist statement.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I hope you're right.

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.