Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

What is the rational for Miranda warnings?

1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 4:30:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) What is the rational for Miranda warnings? I understand that it's based on the 5th Amendment, but I don't understand why it's necessary.

2) If a statement is made before the Miranda warnings, and then repeated after the warnings, is it acceptable in court?

3) Where can I read a good simple analysis of the decision not to read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the Miranda immediately.
I'm writing an essay on the question: "Is it appropriate that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not read his rights immediately?"
Personal opinions are also welcome.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 4:34:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
4) What is the reasoning of those who say that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should have been read his rights immediately?
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 4:46:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(1) It's "Miranda Rights" not "warnings." The idea is that individuals must know of their rights to act in defense of them/to not be exploited by the law.

(2) That depends.

(3,4) No such "simple" analysis exists. It's a legally contentious topic, that is very nuanced and complicated. The thick and thin of it is that because it was hypothesized that the suspect may have information which was directly linked to a potentially imminent threat to national security. Because it was thought as such that the suspect had information as described, reading him his rights (reminding him of his right to remain silent) might jeopardize national security. I don't think it was necessary not to read the suspect his rights (I'm referring to him as the suspect only because I can't spell his fvcking name) because the threat of the death penalty SHOULD have been enough of a motivator to get him to talk, but I wasn't in the legal situation room so I assume that there are facts at hand I'm not privy to.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 4:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 4:30:10 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
1) What is the rational for Miranda warnings? I understand that it's based on the 5th Amendment, but I don't understand why it's necessary.

Also 6th amendment, and it's necessary because those rights only have practical utility if you know and understand them. It doesn't do any good to grant people the right to an attorney if they aren't aware of it.


2) If a statement is made before the Miranda warnings, and then repeated after the warnings, is it acceptable in court?

It depends on the circumstances but, any volunteered statement is admissible, regardless, only statements that are elicited from the suspect in response to police action (while you are detained) fall under the scope of Miranda.

This is something that could go either way. Miranda doesn't invoke the fruit of the poisonous tree, so even if violations of Miranda lead to statements being dismissed, subsequent evidence and statements derived from it are still admissible. However, the court may rule the entire interrogative session invalid.


3) Where can I read a good simple analysis of the decision not to read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the Miranda immediately.

Specifically? All over the place. I believe the exemption they used was public safety (New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984))

I'm writing an essay on the question: "Is it appropriate that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not read his rights immediately?"
Personal opinions are also welcome.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 5:22:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is the reason for the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
Why is it not a form of obstruction of justice?
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 4:31:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 4:30:10 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
1) What is the rational for Miranda warnings? I understand that it's based on the 5th Amendment, but I don't understand why it's necessary.

So people aren't strong-armed by the law.

2) If a statement is made before the Miranda warnings, and then repeated after the warnings, is it acceptable in court?

I would imagine so, since it was made before the warning.
If the statement was solely made after the warning, or during it, it could be. I believe one exception (perhaps the only one) is an excited utterence.

3) Where can I read a good simple analysis of the decision not to read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the Miranda immediately.
I'm writing an essay on the question: "Is it appropriate that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not read his rights immediately?"
Personal opinions are also welcome.

I think the biggest reason is no one knew how Tsarnaev was going to be charged. If he was an enemy combatant (i.e. terrorist), then he gets no such warning or rights. It would be a military trial, which is not the same as a civilian one.

5) Self-incrimination goes beyond just the defendant. If you are on trial, and the prosecution calls me to the stand (say I am your friend and my testimony goes to your motive), I have no choice if I am subpoenaed. Should I be forced to answer a question that would incriminate myself?

Furthermore, let's say I was on trial for theft. The evidence is circumstancial, but I can't provide an alibi. Why? Because I was raping some woman. Should I be forced to disclose the crime I did commit to get off from the one I didn't? In fact, should I be forced to take the stand at all, ever?
My work here is, finally, done.
Single_Cell_Pony
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2013 12:25:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 4:30:10 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
1) What is the rational for Miranda warnings? I understand that it's based on the 5th Amendment, but I don't understand why it's necessary.

So that people are aware of their rights afforded to them by the society that they live in. Simple as that.