General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsnebenaube
(3,496 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Did it suggest anything to you? Spin the wheel again.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I'm happy to see people still believe in due process.
longship
(40,416 posts)You used quote marks. Okay. I will bite.
Who said this? Or is this a sarcastic remark?
The tag is your friend in these posts. Or, provide sufficient context for us DU pedants.
On edit: upon reading the rest of this thread, I still don't know why you posted this OP. Whole waste of time, if you ask me.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Gitmo long? Let's hope you're never "detained". Of course you don't worry because you're not a terrorist... but then how would anybody know without due process... Hmm... so circular and confusing...
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Life sentence without parole.
musical_soul
(775 posts)I'd hate to see somebody go free because they were not mirandized. Not sure where the line is on that one, how much cops can get away with.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)The question is in quotes to ape a disturbing lack of reasoning by many DUers. It's facetious. Wonder how many times I'll have to explain this...
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)look is the reasoning provided by Supreme Court in MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436
Among other things, the Court explained:
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means . . . would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (dissenting opinion).
"In this connection, one of our country's distinguished jurists has pointed out: "The quality of a nation's civilization can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of its criminal law." If the individual desires to exercise his privilege, he has the right to do so. This is not for the authorities to decide. An attorney may advise his client not to talk to police until he has had an opportunity to investigate the case, or he may wish to be present with his client during any police questioning. In doing so an attorney is merely exercising the good professional judgment he has been taught. This is not cause for considering the attorney a menace to law enforcement. He is merely carrying out what he is sworn to do under his oath - to protect to the extent of his ability the rights of his client. In fulfilling this responsibility the attorney plays a vital role in the administration of criminal justice under our Constitution.
"In announcing these principles, we are not unmindful of the burdens which law enforcement officials must bear, often under trying circumstances. We also fully recognize the obligation of all citizens to aid in enforcing the criminal laws. This Court, while protecting individual rights, has always given ample latitude to law enforcement agencies in the legitimate exercise of their duties. The limits we have placed on the interrogation process should not constitute an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement. As we have noted, our decision does not in any way preclude police from carrying out their traditional investigatory functions. Although confessions may play an important role in some convictions, the cases before us present graphic examples of the overstatement of the "need" for confessions. In each case authorities conducted interrogations ranging up to five days in duration despite the presence, through standard investigating practices, of considerable evidence against each defendant. Further examples are chronicled in our prior cases. See, e. g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 518 -519 (1963); Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 541 (1961); Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 402 (1945).
undeterred
(34,658 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)determines that they are.
edited to add: And yes, I know it was a teaching moment. (I thought everyone did).
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Cool, thanks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Careful, a few will accuse you of being Socrates.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Please say you do understand any finding of guilt is the result of a due process, and that everyone in this country is entitled to due process, which means innocent until proven guilty.
I know that during last 10 years, the USA has not demonstrated this in criminal justice. I know that often the founders of this country were to have set the stage for what kind of Americans we should be.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'm also reading an article in Asia Times (Pepe Escobar) that is provocative and I believe deserves an OP. Guess I better get ready to get flamed with this: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-230413.html
I'll read more carefully for quotes next time!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I've been busy so I don't know what all is up. I hope I didn't just miss that.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)but there were a lot of "I don't care if his rights are observed" type posts. One DUer didn't want the suspect to have access to a lawyer because the lawyer might do his job. In other words, presumed guilty.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)How about because you aren't guilty until you've been convicted in court? Due process, ever heard of it?
Seriously.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)But you know, we don't really read people their rights before we blow them up using our drone program.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Exactly...
malaise
(268,925 posts)they are not Americans - they are brown and black Muslims