General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy 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 shouldnt care about whether Tsarnaev is read his Miranda rights, its 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 shouldnt 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 didnt follow professional procedures werent 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. Its 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 cant work. This isnt right its wrong in terms of the values it represents and its 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 theyre wrong, not just because the state isnt 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
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... 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) 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)"Reportedly, they already confessed to the bombing of the marathon to the guy they carjacked."
But isn't that hearsay and inadmissable in court?
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)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)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)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Clearly you need something to fill the hours.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)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)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)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.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)My ass you didn't.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)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.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)ramparta
(8 posts)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.