Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,901 posts)
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:19 PM Apr 2013

Why Tsarnaev Should Be Read His Miranda Rights.

Why Tsarnaev Should Be Read His Miranda Rights
[ 97 ] April 20, 2013 | Scott Lemieux

Why Tsarnaev Should Be Read His Miranda Rights
[ 97 ] April 20, 2013 | Scott Lemieux
Since several commenters are suggesting that we shouldn’t care about whether Tsarnaev is read his Miranda rights, it’s worth explaining why we should care. Emily Bazelon is good on this, but let me add a couple points.

It is true that, in a narrow sense, the federal government is free under Miranda to interrogate Tsarnaev without informing him of his rights if it believes it has enough independent evidence to convict him. But this is not the only consideration. Miranda does not require us to be indifferent about the distinction between coercive and non-coercive interrogations, and indeed its logic suggests that we shouldn’t be. Earl Warren, to his great credit, did not believe that there was a inherent contradiction between professionalism and the respect for the rights of the accused and crime control. The local authorities that relied on coercive interrogations and didn’t follow professional procedures weren’t more likely to convict criminals, although they were more likely to convict the innocent. Miranda reflected this belief, and the intent of the rule was to inhibit coercive interrogations, because coercive interrogations were both wrong in themselves and produced unreliable information.


To refuse to inform Tsarnaev of his rights — outside of the acknowledged emergency exception to Miranda — sends the opposite message. It’s the message of the previous administration — i.e. that the rule of law and the “war on terror” are incompatible, that slapping the label “terrorist” on a suspect means that professional procedures that respect the rights of the accused can’t work. This isn’t right — it’s wrong in terms of the values it represents and it’s wrong in terms of the underlying assumption that less respect for the rights of the accused means more effective crime control. The appropriate course of action is for Tsarnaev to be treated like any other criminal suspect, consistently with not only the letter but the spirit of Miranda. Coercive interrogations are wrong because they’re wrong, not just because the state isn’t permitted to introduce evidence gained from them. This is why the Bill of Rights contains the Fifth Amendment rights Miranda was designed to enforce.

MORE:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/04/why-tsarnaev-should-be-read-his-miranda-rights
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Tsarnaev Should Be Read His Miranda Rights. (Original Post) kpete Apr 2013 OP
Not reading him his rights also says "Rules apply ... but only when we say so" ... Myrina Apr 2013 #1
"To refuse to inform Tsarnaev of his rights cleduc Apr 2013 #2
I keep hearing this ..... oldhippie Apr 2013 #12
No. jeff47 Apr 2013 #14
Maybe and maybe not cleduc Apr 2013 #15
He will be WilliamPitt Apr 2013 #3
Should we torture him if he refuses to cooperate? Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #5
You can torture that strawman if you want. WilliamPitt Apr 2013 #6
But he might know about bombs in your neighborhood. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #7
Come to Boston and ask around. WilliamPitt Apr 2013 #8
I have two kids living in the immediate area. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #9
"I'm just curious which rights you will surrender and which you won't." WilliamPitt Apr 2013 #10
My ass I didn't. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #11
Many of us here have learned nothing from our recent history. Nothing. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #4
read him his rights. get him an atty. ramparta Apr 2013 #13

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
1. Not reading him his rights also says "Rules apply ... but only when we say so" ...
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:44 PM
Apr 2013

.... which is totally and completely a Bush-ism. This Administration - and the country - now needs to hold itself to a better standard than that.

 

cleduc

(653 posts)
2. "To refuse to inform Tsarnaev of his rights
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:48 PM
Apr 2013

— outside of the acknowledged emergency exception to Miranda"

I don't think that's what is going on:

From the FBI
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

CONCLUSION

The "public safety" exception to Miranda is a powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda


Once they get past the public safety concern, he's automatically protected if they don't give him a Miranda warning.

In general, I don't see a big problem with that.

Regardless, like any accused, he has the option of saying nothing.

Reportedly, they already confessed to the bombing of the marathon to the guy they carjacked.

In this particular case, I don't think they'll need any testimony from him to get a substantial conviction so it's not likely to be much of an issue should it go to trial.

The big thing they seem to want is assistance with any other safety issue/threat.
 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
12. I keep hearing this .....
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 05:44 PM
Apr 2013

"Reportedly, they already confessed to the bombing of the marathon to the guy they carjacked."

But isn't that hearsay and inadmissable in court?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
14. No.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 06:18 PM
Apr 2013

There's a hell of a lot of exemptions in the hearsay rules. Such a statement would fit very nicely in the "Statement against interest" exception.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay#United_States

 

cleduc

(653 posts)
15. Maybe and maybe not
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 07:01 PM
Apr 2013

With all the other evidence, the prosecution may not bother with it. There would certainly be an argument from the defendant's lawyer if it's brought up.

But one legal argument under "statement against penal interest" might be that because it is such an outrageous incriminating claim, because there is a mountain of corroborating evidence to support it and because the person testifying is trustworthy (yet to be established and maybe with no direct stake in the case), it should be included so that a guilty party of a heinous act does not go free. - something along those lines.

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
3. He will be
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:53 PM
Apr 2013

after they ask him if there are any bombs in my neighborhood.

I hope you can cope with the stress of it.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
7. But he might know about bombs in your neighborhood.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:48 PM
Apr 2013

I'm just curious which rights you will surrender and which you won't. But feel free to snark away from the issue.

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
8. Come to Boston and ask around.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:49 PM
Apr 2013

See how many people feel like they surrendered their rights. Pack a lunch; you'll be at it a while.

Or you can sit on your ass and insult people by calling them dupes, lackeys and police-state enablers.

I'm guessing you'll go for option #2.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
9. I have two kids living in the immediate area.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:51 PM
Apr 2013

So you can go all local on me but it is sort of ineffective.
Oh and by the way I haven't called you or anyone else any of those things.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
11. My ass I didn't.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 05:34 PM
Apr 2013

Or you can sit on your ass and insult people by calling them dupes, lackeys and police-state enablers.

I haven't used any of those terms. I have not gone after you with personal insults at all.

You've gone on the record supporting stripping away the rights of this person. I'd like to know how far you'd go with the "ticking bomb" rational. Sorry if you don't think the question is legitimate, and worse find it insulting, but it is a fair question, and I think your off-kilter reaction is in part because you know it is a fair question.
 

ramparta

(8 posts)
13. read him his rights. get him an atty.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 05:52 PM
Apr 2013

it is not only the right thing to do but

the atty will bargain for his cooperation, which is still necessary if there are more bombs or a wider conspiracy.

no amount of enhanced interrogation will assure as much cooperation as quickly as his lawyer can.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Tsarnaev Should Be Re...