Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 270 posts

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#52

Post by D9u »

doktrin wrote: post #45
D9u wrote: post #32

This is no different than "Signature" killings via UAV, nor is it much different than the Telcoms receiving immunity for their participation in the unconstitutional domestic surveillance program. It's just another example of how far our nation has fallen in a relatively short period of time.

> This is no different than "Signature" killings via UAV Completely disagree. There's a vast difference between assassinations without trial of both US and foreign nationals vs. not reading a suspect their Miranda rights. Note that the rights themselves are not being stripped away, as is obviously the case with the former. This doesn't mean either practice is noble or desirable, but it's patently ridiculous to draw f…

Both set a precedent for violations of Constitutional rights.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#54

Post by zecho »

starnixgod wrote: post #3

I'm more concerned that Lindsey Graham and John McCain are hoping to declare this kid an "Enemy Combatant"

After attacking the president's legalese regarding hypothetical drone strikes on citizens. Political theatre, the lot of it.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#57

Post by rayiner »

hncommenter13 wrote: post #36

You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial. Discussing the similar case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, Orin Kerr, a law professor who is an expert on the 4th Amendment wrote: "Importantly, though, it would not have vi…

It only seems weird if you think of Miranda (and various other procedural protections) as a "gotcha" to hinder police efforts, instead of what it is: a way to keep people ignorant of their 5th amendment rights from incriminating themselves. That's the alpha and the omega of Miranda. It's not a search and seizure protection at all, which is why evidence obtained as a result of a Miranda-less interrogation is nonetheless admissible.

Unfortunately, too many people conceive of the 4th and 5th amendment protections entirely as roadblocks to hinder police for the sake of hindering the police, instead of the targeted checks on police behavior that they are. In doing so they read important parts of the amendments (e.g. "unreasonable" or precisely what a protection applies to, or precisely what sorts of activity a protection prohibits) completely out of the text of the Constitution.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#58

Post by nhebb »

Tsarnaev and his brother planted bombs. It is not unreasonable for the FBI to be concerned that they may have left other bombs in place that could detonate later. Or, that there were other people involved that we don't know about. Invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights seems prudent to me.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#59

Post by chacham15 »

dyno12345 wrote: post #7

I thought witholding Miranda means that anything he says is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law – but it's not like there's a lack of other incriminating evidence so that they would need to use self-incrimination to form a case against him.

No, Miranda is very often misinterpreted. It generally means that the person cannot be interrogated. The penalty for violating the rule is that anything said is inadmissible. If, for example, the witness isnt read his Miranda rights but just chooses to say something, that is fair game because he wasnt being interrogated. (Further, this is also a simplification, the full extent of Miranda is complicated, so this is just a perhaps overly broad taste)
Post reply on HN