Supreme W. Court strikes again! (5-4 decision on Miranda rights)

[displacedtexan]

5-4

Shocker! </sarcasm>

17 year olds should know that the police don't have to read them their Miranda rights while being treated as suspects.

What crap!

http://ascrivenerslament.blogspot.com/

[LittleApple81]

1. My God... are they so old that they don't even talk to a 17-year old

anymore? Or, they know THEIR DESCENDANTS will have a lawyer at their elbow instantly if they do something illegal (I am not saying get into trouble because American justice applies to the poor now.)

Many poor 17-year-olds have trouble READING much less understanding the law and regulations.

[AZCat]

2. Justice Breyer writing the dissenting opinion....

link for the whole decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1684

(from down at the dissent)
MICHAEL YARBOROUGH, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL ALVARADO

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

June 1, 2004

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

In my view, Michael Alvarado clearly was "in custody" when the police questioned him (without Miranda warnings) about the murder of Francisco Castaneda. To put the question in terms of federal law's well-established legal standards: Would a "reasonable person" in Alvarado's "position" have felt he was "at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave"? Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99, 112 (1995); Stansbury v. California 511 U. S. 318, 325 (1994) (per curiam). A court must answer this question in light of "all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation." Id., at 322. And the obvious answer here is "no."

The law in this case asks judges to apply, not arcane or complex legal directives, but ordinary common sense. Would a reasonable person in Alvarado's position have felt free simply to get up and walk out of the small room in the station house at will during his 2-hour police interrogation? I ask the reader to put himself, or herself, in Alvarado's circumstances and then answer that question: Alvarado hears from his parents that he is needed for police questioning. His parents take him to the station. On arrival, a police officer separates him from his parents. His parents ask to come along, but the officer says they may not. App. 185-186. Another officer says, " 'What do we have here; we are going to question a suspect.' " Id., at 189.
<snip> (bold emphasis mine)


The rest of the opinion is good reading. Too bad O'Connor had to concur - it appears that she is rationalizing that 18 is 'almost' an adult. Here is her concurrance (separate from majority opinion):

Justice O'Connor, concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court, but write separately to express an additional reason for reversal. There may be cases in which a suspect's age will be relevant to the Miranda "custody" inquiry. In this case, however, Alvarado was almost 18 years old at the time of his interview. It is difficult to expect police to recognize that a suspect is a juvenile when he is so close to the age of majority. Even when police do know a suspect's age, it may be difficult for them to ascertain what bearing it has on the likelihood that the suspect would feel free to leave. That is especially true here; 17½-year-olds vary widely in their reactions to police questioning, and many can be expected to behave as adults. Given these difficulties, I agree that the state court's decision in this case cannot be called an unreasonable application of federal law simply because it failed explicitly to mention Alvarado's age.

[leftyandproud]

3. miranda rights are wrong..

they were created for STUPID criminals who used to instantly confess because they didn't know they had any other option. Some judge thought it wasn't "fair" that dumb criminals instantly confessed while big mobsters went through the system the logn way, so they made it mandatory to tell the dumb crimials that they didn't need to give a statement after being arrested...this has cost millions of dollars and led to many repeat offenders getting off on technicalities.

[wuushew]

5. Any other inconvient laws you wish to get rid while your at it?

n/t

[Occulus]

6. How can you claim to be a progressive

and be against Miranda?

Do you also have a problem with the Fourth Amendment?

[leftyandproud]

10. well..

my dad has been a cop for 35 years, so I have a somewhat different persective than most on it.

[K-W]

11. That is the worst excuse I have ever heard.

Why dont you at least try and think about the issues rather than trying to excuse your biased opinion.

[leftyandproud]

20. hey K-W

If you know your history, you will know that the REASON...the justification for miranda being passed was that too many "poor" criminals were admitting their crimes the moment they were caught. The rich criminals were getting off on technicalities and other things simply because they knew they didn't need to make any statements. Now, we have rich AND poor criminals gaming the system and costing you and I billions of dollars. But hey, it's only "fair"...now they ALL have an equal chance of getting away with their crimes against innocents...how compassionate!

[Poor Richard]

23. Bullshit

Miranda and the cases before it were put into place because cops used to BEAT confessions out of suspects with rubber hoses in the basement of the police station.

These cases give teeth to the constitutional rights our forefathers were wise enough to insist upon. Do your homework.

[loyalsister]

37. The difference wasn't "rich vs poor"

It was a matter of education regarding our legal system. Many, many people are now aware of the fact that they are entitled to a lawyer if they are arrested. That wouldn't be a widely known fact if Miranda weren't a part of our criminal justice system.
The "rich" criminals to whome you refer were likely to be those with some experience with the criminal justice system (mafia- maybe). Their familiarity was an education that most of us would not have had. In those days, an average person who hadn't been to law school might not be aware of their right to an attorney.

[JSJ]

29. that explains...

...your right-wing/anti-people perspective.

[AZCat]

7. I think this is a mischaracterization

You state that "some judge thought it wasn't 'fair' that..." I think that describing five Supreme Court Justices as 'some judge' is a mischaracterization. Sure, there are serious questions about both the usefulness and the constitutionality of Miranda v. Arizona, but the debate isn't well-served by flinging rhetoric like this.

And regarding both your 'stupid criminals' claim and your claim of "this has cost millions of dollars and led to many repeat offenders getting off on technicalities," I submit to you this quote from the Economist:

"(T)here is little evidence that a significant number of guilty people are going free because of the Miranda warning. The chief reason for this is that, contrary to expectations, most people under arrest do not keep their mouths shut and do not ask for a lawyer, even though it is almost always in their interest to do so."

Ref: * "A Pillar of the Law Assailed." Economist 12/11/99 v 353 i8149 p. 23

Perhaps the 'stupid criminals' claim is correct, but it seems to balance out the second claim. Regardless, there isn't much evidence one way or the other.

[redqueen]

8. Thanks for adding some light

:thumbsup:

[leftyandproud]

9. how do you explain...

the skyrocketing (repeat) crime rates we saw after this decision was put into effect? I saw a graph once it was nearly flatlined, and within two years of miranda and other legislation/rulings that favored the criminal, there were HUGE spikes, and crime has been growing steadily since.

[K-W]

12. Crime rates have skyrocketed? Where exactly.

Could you possibly cite something more reputable than a graph you saw once?

[Solon]

14. The way I understand it...

was Miranda was mentally disabled and did not understand his rights. Also to say that one sentence is the cause of th crime upsurge is not founded on facts. You forget the Drug war, counter culture, and the decimation of manufacturing jobs in the cities. All of these, I would think, have a far greater affect on the crime rate than having police say one line at point of arrest. Besides, before Miranda, many police forced confessions out of people who had nothing to do with the crime, and many departments still try to skirt the issue. Personally, I would prefer to live in a society with too much freedom than one with too little, but then again maybe you don't feel that way.

[snippy]

17. The Miranda decision had no effect on crime rates.

Lighter sentencing, easier parole and the sentence reductions for good behavior did have an adverse impact, but those provisions in criminal laws have been strengthened at the state level and entirely eliminated at the federal level.

[leftyandproud]

21. Every time someone is caught..

the cops make sure to tell him...Now you KNOW you don't need to tell us anything...You don't need to say a word about this...IF you do say anything to us, we will use it against you in court...oh, and you also get a lawyer if you want one to talk to first...now, how bout confessing?

well, now the uneducated criminals are getting off, just like the smarter ones...rich and poor thugs alike, hurting people and getting a much better chance of release...lets hold hands and sing an ode to our magnificent "progressive" vision

[Poor Richard]

24. its the fifth amendment, stupid

eom

[leftyandproud]

25. it's pro criminal, stupid

does progressive = pro criminal? enabling stupid criminals to get away with things? Giving poor criminals the same knowledge as rich criminals so they can get away with crimes easier in the name of "fairness"...Is it 'social justice' to allow stupid people to get away with more crimes?

I call it stupidity.

[kiahzero]

27. Let's get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, then

That's your problem. Not that people are told that they have those rights, but that they have them at all.

After all, they enable stupid criminals to get away with things.

[wellst0nev0ter]

28. Oh Now I Get It

Every person arrested by the cops is automatically guilty and is free to be labeled as "criminal". No need for the pagentry of trial and jury, just slap the cuffs on some boob, thow em in jail.

And people wonder why so many innocent people get put on death row :eyes:

[leftyandproud]

33. innocent until proven guilty..

the process of proving them guilty could be shortened dramatically if they weren't told from the outset "Don't say anything to us...If you do, we use it against your ass." Before people were told this, they were much more likely to come clean at the outset and tell the interrogators what they did. Nobody is talking about changing the conviction process...but miranda was really created just because a judge didn't think it was "fair" that poor criminals confessed instantly and much more often than rich criminals did.

[wellst0nev0ter]

41. Or Maybe Police Back Then Expedited Guilty Verdicts

By coercing poor people to testify against themselves, whether it is genuine or not. But of course that never happened in this free and fair country of ours, did it?

[Tamiati]

44. Where do you get your information

The right to remain silent is a protected under the 5th Amendment of our constitution. The "miranda rights" were an affirmation of the amendment. Which was guaranteed to us, so that idiot's like you can't just make shit up and convict you in a court of law without due process. They are to prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

But with todays world, now they protect the identities of those who are claiming that they know of involvement in a crime no matter the character or background of the person testifying against you. What BS is this? We are going back to the dark ages aren't we??

Many of the constitutional amendments that we given to us by our forefathers were designed to protect us from our own corrupt government in the future. They were insightful individuals who knew what the cost of freedom bore, and the ramifications of any government who "persecutes" those who stand against them.

Have'nt you studied any American history by the way?? What grade did you complete?

[sampsonblk]

32. Your language

makes your argument even weaker than it would be otherwise. I disagree with your points. But beyond that, you sound like Ann Coulter.

A man isn't a criminal until he is convicted. What can be wrong with notifying him of his rights - which are very complicated - at the outset?

[kiahzero]

26. So rights are all good

So long as no one exercises them?

:eyes:

That's the same exact bullshit that goes on with jury nullification - yes, juries have the right to nullify a law, but it's permissible for a judge to boldface lie to the jury and tell them that they don't.

Maybe I'm just too much of a "lefty" because I think that one right people have is to be accurately informed of their rights, rather than lied to.

[snippy]

34. If all these criminals are getting off, who the fuck is in our prisons?

The prisons are full. Your argument is based on falsehoods and an irrational and emotional willingness to believe propaganda. Are you aware of the incarceration rate in the US? Are you aware of the crime rate in the US? Are you aware of how long Miranda spent in prison following his conviction in his retrial?

[Tamiati]

45. Who is in the prisons

They are filled with non-violent, low-level drug offenders primarily being of black, & hispanic heritage. Of course some whites are there too, those who can't afford to hire their own legal representative while the "drug czars" & king-pins remain free as their paid lawyers find the necessary loopholes to get them out of jail free so to speak.

We also were supposed to have equal representation under the law, but when you have a lawyer paid by the state whose interest do you think they are working for really??

What a sham our justice system has become, a mockery of the forefathers intentions.

[troublemaker]

35. If Miranda did not reduce *conviction* rates then why defend it?

There would be little point to a procedure that has no effect.

Our legal system is not working unless a fair number of guilty people go free. Similarly, we know that cancer screening isn't working well if there are not some unnecessary cancer surgeries. The screen is designed to err in the direction of cancer detection. That is considered less dangerous than false negatives.


The criminal law process is designed to err in the direction of non-conviction because the theory is that it's better to exonerate a guilty person than to convict an innocent person.

[snippy]

38. Because it requires the government to follow the Constitution.

Granting the Government carte blanche authority to behave as it wishes is unwise no matter how much you desire the consequences in a particular circumstance.

[AZCat]

18. A point...

Without any actual information in front of me, I can't do anything other than make generalizations, but I think there is one worth making.

Correlation versus causation:
You have pointed out that crime rates went up after Miranda v. Arizona. As I said, I haven't checked that. But if we accept your claim, just because crime rates went up after 1966 (the date of Miranda) doesn't mean that Miranda caused that rise - just that there is a correlation between the two.
Their are plenty of people more knowledgeable about society and crime than me (it sounds like you are, for example) who can actually look at the causes of crime, but I do know that the period in question (post-1966) was a tumultuous time in America, and that there are other possible causes for the increase in crime. In fact, it is possible that a case like Miranda coming before the SCOTUS and increased crime rates are both dependent on some THIRD factor.
What would this third factor be? I don't know - as I said, I leave that up to people more knowledgeable than me - but the possibilities I can think of off the top of my head are: increased disconnect between youth and the 'adults'; veterans returning home from Vietnam; a more mobile society; more guns; more drugs; diet. There have to have been a few graduate theses written about this.

[JSJ]

30. how to explain sky-rocketing crime rates?

Simple--- it's the low caliber of cops we've had since then.

[troublemaker]

36. Easier explanation. THERE ARE NO SKYROCKETING CRIME RATES

[djg21]

13. Too much TV!

Criminal suspects do not have to be read Miranda rights unless they are being interrogated! The misperception that anyone being arrested must be read their rights stems from watching too many TV police dramas. A custodial interrogation triggers Miranda.

[Solon]

16. Miranda was Mentally Disabled!

I can't believe you just said that.

[Skittles]

43. if this is what you really think

that is sad

[UTUSN]

4. Kick for Steam-out-the-ears n/t

[DaveSZ]

15. Sigh

I'm not too excited about Kerry, but the prospect of a Fascist (more fascist than what we have now) Bush SC is horrifying.

[NNN0LHI]

19. Don't need no Miranda rights when the cops are torturing people

http://www.sacobserver.com/news/072103/aaron_patterson.shtml

Pardoned Death Row Inmate Files $30M Suit

CHICAGO (NNPA) - A lawsuit seeking $30 million in damages has been filed by a former death row inmate who charges that city and county officials conspired against him in a case of wrongful conviction and false imprisonment that robbed him of 17 years of his life.

"This lawsuit is an action in direct response to being terrorized in our own city," former death row inmate Aaron Patterson told a room full of reporters recently, explaining that his unjust imprisonment had cost him 17 years of his life. snip

Convicted of double murder in 1986 and pardoned by former Republican Gov. George Ryan on Jan. 10, Patterson claims he was unlawfully detained and interrogated by retired Area 2 Chicago Police Lt. Jon Burge, former Police Dept. Sgt. John Byrne and several other officers using torture techniques that "shock the conscience," forcing him to confess to the murders of Rafaela and Vincent Sanchez.

The suit claims that the officers were given leads early on that other individuals committed the murders and, regardless to that, officer Burge told one suspect that he "really wanted to get Patterson."

The complaint claims that Patterson was suffocated with a plastic typewriter cover, beaten about his body and threatened with a gun. It also claims that Patterson's co-defendant, Eric Caine, suffered a ruptured eardrum in an attack by Officer Raymond Madigan during interrogation, resulting in Caine's signing of a false statement implicating Patterson.

more

[Zinfandel]

22. The same 5-4 majority who gave the WH illegally to Bush?

[notbush]

31. I am tempted to say "fuck you you stupid hunks of human excrement"

but I won't.
My aunt was murdered 4 years ago by a punk with a knife,an addiction, and a record 10 years long.
He confessed to the crime, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 40 years, with no possible parole.....
Suddenly 2 years ago, an ACLU lawyer picked up his case on appeal.
He had a "new" claim. It seems that the arresting officer had passed away and now the convicted murderer was claiming that his Miranda rights were not read to him ....during the initial arrest.
Although there are numerous witnesses to a "2nd reading of Miranda" at the jail he was taken to.
There is (nor can there be) any corroboration to the original "reading" .
If this guy walks.....kdjfosiwerutjpal;soidghn
People play the system, the system plays people.

[leftyandproud]

39. notice...

when you post a practical example of how criminals abuse the miranda ruling, the so-called "progressives" vanish...no responses in 24 hours. They love the touchy feely sensation they get from supporting these things...but point to a practical example of how it fails and how it supports criminals, and they are silent.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

47. Until this man walks...

"Lefty", then he can only be accused of attempting to use Miranda as a way to escape procescution.

The poster said "if" he gets off, meaning he is still behind bars until the case is concluded.

Cool your jets.


Martha Washington

[Tamiati]

46. Apologies for that

I understand your anger about the situation, I would be steaming myself. But, still that is not a right to strip away the common citizens rights. I empathize with you & your loss.

I sincerely wish the ACLU would work more productively on issues of greater importance, than taking up things of this nature that only hurt & erode our constitution.

While I am a progressive, liberal. I, still have my own opinions & fundamentally may be different than most of the "platform".

[EndElectoral]

40. What does this mean in terms of future cases and past ones?

[Skip Intro]

42. Your rights are none of your business

Get back to work