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

61–70 of 270 posts

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

#61

Post by chacham15 »

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…

Miranda is very complicated. It generally means that the person cannot be interrogated. The penalty for violating the rule is that anything said is inadmissible. That is an important difference. 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)

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

#62

Post by rorrr2 »

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.

They don't care. They have enough evidence to put him away for life, or to even execute him.

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

#63

Post by zecho »

Steko wrote: post #38

If anyone thinks the government will need Dzhokar's confession to establish guilt here they are bonkers.

This isn't really a question of a confession as much as it is Holder's DOJ has a long history of expanding the definition of the exemption. If they ask him where he's keeping any bombs, fine, but if they're doing this purely for long-term intelligence reasons above and beyond any clear or present dangers, I'm not sure if I would agree with that usage.

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

#64

Post by cynicalkane »

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…

The public safety exception seems to be for when a Miranda warning would be impractical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Public_safety_...

I'm not sure if having a reasonable opportunity to read someone their rights, then choosing not to, is in the spirit of the public safety exception. Public danger alone can't be the reason, since the whole reason for criminal law in the first place is to protect the public from danger. Interested if an actual lawyer could clarify.

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

#65

Post by cinquemb »

cema wrote: post #46
willurd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case you could make the argument that it's the right thing to do because it's (I'm assuming) what you would want done to yourself.

You know, whatever works. If we agree it's a moral thing to do, the origin of the morality is less important. Philosophy can be debated... in a different thread.

"whatever works."

Well if the State™ has to circumvent it's own laws to achieve some ends (which i doubt are really ends since incidents like this will continue to happen), one could argue that grounds for morality are null and void.

After all, that's what Terrorists™ do.

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

#66

Post by shabda »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #60
dsfasfasf wrote: post #4

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"I'm so tired of this quote." -rmrfrmrf

Why?

It is in times such as these, it is the most important to remind us of this.

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

#67

Post by alex_h »

rorrr2 wrote: post #62
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.

They don't care. They have enough evidence to put him away for life, or to even execute him.

Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

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

#68

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #57
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 nonethele…

So what's the "public safety exception" about then?

We're starting from the position that, absent a public safety concern, the defendant's right to know his rights is greater than the law enforcement interest in not encouraging the defendant to exercise them, and if the cops don't read the Miranda rights then the statements aren't admissible.

Now throw in a public safety issue -- the cops have to interrogate this guy or some people could get hurt. Why does that change the result? If the public safety issue is more important than reading the defendant his rights, then it's also more important than allowing the police to use the defendant's statements in court, since we've already decided as between those things which is more important. So the consistent outcome should be for the cops to interrogate the defendant and resolve the public safety issue, but for them not to be able to use any of those statements in court.

Is there some non-obvious reason for it to not work that way?

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

#70

Post by gareim »

singlow wrote: post #28
willurd wrote: post #2

Because one day it might be you who doesn't get read their rights.

The Miranda rights are not the right to be read the Miranda recitation, although Miranda did involve that requirement. He actually will not have the right to remain silent. It may mean that his statements are not admissible, but it also means that the interrogators will not leave him alone if he asks for a lawyer or provide a lawyer during questioning. He cannot invoke his Miranda rights even if he knows them.

No, you're wrong. He has the right to remain silent and the right to counsel; the article even mentions that. The right to remain silent and right the counsel are built into the Constitution and can't be waived so easily just because the FBI decide they want to. What they can do, as determined by a few courts, is not remind the suspect of those rights in situations where the FBI believe they need information for public safety.
Post reply on HN