Do you think Tsarnaev should be read his Miranda rights when he is deemed able to answer questions?

[patricia92243]

I have seen people argue/discuss both sides of the issue, but I have not seen the raw numbers of people with each viewpoint.

Just wondering how DU comes down on each side of the discussion.

9 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I think he should have his Miranda rights read to him before any questioning begins
	9 (100%)
	I think he should not have his Miranda rights read to him until authorities question him.
	0 (0%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[moobu2]

1. I don't think it matters

The Government has plenty of evidence to get a conviction so no need for Tsarnaev's statement.

[dballance]

5. You're Probably Right. Miranda Only Applies to Statements Made by the Accused; Not Physical Evidence

Whether they read him rights or not they have enough physical evidence to most likely gain a conviction.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Fuck due process, we got "seems like" and "say so"...

Americans deserve their dystopian future.

[Iggo]

2. Of course!

Why wouldn't I?

[dballance]

3. Why Open the Door to a Defense Lawyer?

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Whether or not he's read his rights by the authorities I'm willing to bet he knows the Miranda by heart. I can almost say it by rote having watched enough TV cop shows. He grew up in this country from his pre-teen years and was, by all accounts, a typical kid. So he watched the cop shows too.

But, why even give a defense attorney something to use? Read him his rights. It's the right thing to do. I doubt it will matter one way or the other in any case. He'll either be willing to talk or won't be willing.

[whatchamacallit]

9. This may be the most absurd and disturbing thing I've ever read on DU

Congratulations.

[dballance]

11. I don't Understand Why you Feel That Way.

Could you explain?

[gateley]

4. If he has info that could lead to more actions or bombs (public safety)

I think they should determine that before Miranda. If they wait until after, his defense may not let him provide such info.

He doesn't have to speak anyway, Miranda or not, and I'm sure he knows that.

Not a big issue, I don't think. They won't wait too long or they'll suffer a LOT of criticism from the public.

[tularetom]

6. What I don't understand is why the fuck this is even an issue

Of course they should read him his rights.

Who is the genius that thinks that NOT reading him his Miranda rights is going to help convict him?

Unless he's a complete idiot or his injuries somehow impaired his ability to reason, he won't tell them anything whether he is read his rights or not.

If they don't want their case against this asshole jeopardized they need to do this entirely by the book.

[Quantess]

15. That's the part I don't get, either.

Are we missing something here?

[woo me with science]

19. +100000 Orwellian talking points

We should not be "debating" this shit, period. But this is how authoritarianism invades. Throw out the unthinkable, with eminently "reasonable" voices going along...and soon you have the population doubting itself and debating the unthinkable.

It's chilling, to see this manipulative garbage on DU.

[bluedigger]

8. There are no ongoing threats that he has knowledge of.

There is no evidence that they placed any explosive devices which utilized timers, have placed devices at other targets, or participated in any sleeper cells. In fact, everything known by the public at this time points against all those ideas. If the authorities have any evidence that contradicts this and poses an imminent threat to the public, they could wave Miranda temporarily, but I don't believe they have such. They have had all weekend to check their residences and interview their associates, with no additional arrests made. Better to Mirandize him and proceed normally.

[avebury]

10. Of course he should have his rights read to him

prior to being questioned. However, if the Government refuses to grant him his rights as a citizen, the Government should not have the right to use any statements made prior to being read his rights or any evidence found relating to said statements against him in court. Fruit of the poisonous tree as it were.

[HereSince1628]

12. That hinges on suspicions of his awareness of other immediate threats to public safety

From the point of view of police and security services they are professionally suspicious.

The leadership of those organizations all the way up to the Oval Office won't want to be seen to have left any stone unturned in trying to prevent others from further criminal/terrorist acts.

I understand why people in such positions want that provision to not need Miranda rights read to be enacted...it's precedent setting and probably has fairly broad support.

Personally, I don't think the Miranda warning per se really matters that much to this case. After 10 years of living in the US #2 certainly has watched enough television to know that he has 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself.

I have no legal training beyond television myself, and I wonder if the issue is that if he is going to be charged as an enemy combatant, there may be some sense that there is a conflict between being recognized by the state as having civil rights and being charged in a way that the state denies access to those rights.

[randome]

13. Sorry. Dumb poll.

You should have an option to read him his rights after all public safety issues have been resolved within 48 hours, as allowed by law.

An either/or poll is meaningless in this case.

[Yo_Mama]

14. I couldn't answer that poll - I favor SOME questioning

This is one of those cases in which the public safety is an issue. I would be okay with the FBI asking him questions like "where did you make the bombs" and "are there more bombs or components remaining at a site" and "where did you test bombs". It's a very good possibility that they built at least one of these and set it off to test the thing, and if that is true, there may be one that didn't detonate and could possibly be found and kill some random individual(s).

There's also a very good chance that there's a cache of explosives in some building somewhere, and that is a real risk to public safety. A lawyer would tell him to say nothing. Of course, when he is able to answer questions he may choose not to respond at all. I don't think this kid gives a flip about the death of some random victim. If he did, he would not have been planting bombs in the first place.

The public safety exception is real and an ongoing part of jurisprudence. However I do believe that questioning related to public safety has to be limited to direct threats to public safety. Therefore I would not be comfortable with days of questioning.

Since the Boston public defenders are going to represent him, I do feel that his fundamental rights will be protected.

Also, don't forget that Miranda protections are enforced in court. There's plenty of evidence to convict this guy if he never says anything, but if he is questioned with[out] the Miranda warning any evidence gained from the questioning will be litigated in court if it or any other evidence deriving from his answers is placed in evidence against him.

So my answer is equivocal. If I were an FBI agent, I would question him about remaining bombs and bomb-making materials, any testing sites, and stuff like that before Mirandizing him. I would do so knowing that it was possible that this would limit some charges against him in court, but because there really is a public danger here.

For example, after the Watertown shootout some of the improvised explosives had not detonated, and they had to bring in a bomb squad to detonate them. There's a very good chance that there are some undetonated devices at some unknown testing location, which is probably rural.

[patricia92243]

16. 214 views but only a fraction of those voted. For those who say the pole is not worded exactly as

they think it should be-----

Are people ashamed of their views? If a person went to the trouble to view, why not vote? Odd. Or, even make a snarky reply.

[oldhippie]

22. Well, here's a snarky reply for ya .....

I didn't answer the poll because:
1) There was no good answer (which I didn't know when I took the trouble to view it)
2) I really don't care

How's that?

[limpyhobbler]

17. encouraging results. nt

[steve2470]

18. ACLU Statement on Miranda Rights of Boston Bombings Suspect

http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-statement-miranda-rights-boston-bombings-suspect

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union reacted to the apprehension of the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing and statements from federal officials that he would be questioned without being read his Miranda rights.

"The ACLU shares the public's relief that the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has been apprehended," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.

"Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights. The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule. Additionally, every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried-and-true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions.

"Our thoughts remain with the victims of this tragedy and with the entire Boston community."

[woo me with science]

20. +1000000

OF COURSE.

[steve2470]

21. agreed ! nt

[AndyA]

23. I heard Tsarnaev isn't able to speak, due to his injuries.

Is it required that a person verbally acknowledges understanding their rights? If they're incapacitated, there's no way for them to do anything indicating they understand.

I always thought they had to respond verbally, but I'm not sure why I think that. Anyone know?