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

131–140 of 270 posts

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

#131

Post by pyre »

icelancer wrote: post #118
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The public safety exception strikes me as equivalent to the enemy combatant exception - a way to just skirt civil liberties when it seems relevant.

  | a way to just skirt civil liberties when
  | it seems relevant
That's exactly what it is, with good reason. When this is used, we are saying that the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect. When we're talking about the possibility of active bombs hidden within a civilian population, I would think it's a no-brainer that the rights of the people to not be blown up trumps the suspect's rights.

Also, as @anigbrowl says, this isn't going to be a case where the majority of evidence comes from the suspect's Miranda-less statements.

Edit: I will admit that this could hurt the suspect's eventual defense. Even if the statements aren't necessary to the prosecution's case, making them admissible in court could limit explanations put forth by the defendant.

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

#132

Post by jhaglund »

geuis wrote: post #101
nhebb wrote: post #58

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.

No, Tsarnaev and his brother did not plant bombs as of the current moment. They are SUSPECTS in a criminal investigation in which one or more parties planted bombs. Be VERY, VERY careful before you throw out that distinction. One day you may find yourself arrested for something you did or didn't do, only to find public opinion very much against you based on little more than hearsay.

Ya know, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but blury pictures of them dropping a bag, a witness description, a car chase where they threw bombs out the window, a shootout where one brother got hit with shrapnel of his own pressure cooker bomb, etc.

Let justice do its blind thing but it's OK for us to state the obvious. They did it.

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

#133

Post by ryguytilidie »

rayiner wrote: post #79
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The public safety exception exists so police don't have to decide, before the fact in a dangerous situation, whether to immediately interrogate the suspect and give up the possibility of using what he says to convict him or to read him his Miranda rights and risk harm to the public.

What does it take to read someone their Miranda rights? 20 seconds? The dude has been in custody for hours and they simply said he won't be read them at all. It's not a safety issue at all.

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

#134

Post by baddox »

pyre wrote: post #131
icelancer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public safety exception strikes me as equivalent to the enemy combatant exception - a way to just skirt civil liberties when it seems relevant.

| a way to just skirt civil liberties when | it seems relevant That's exactly what it is, with good reason. When this is used, we are saying that the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect. When we're talking about the possibility of active bombs hidden within a civilian population, I would think it's a no-brainer that the rights of the people to not be blown up trumps the suspect's rights. Also, as @anigb…

If it's as simple as saying "the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect," then why not torture the suspect?

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

#135

Post by kaonashi »

tzs wrote: post #86
dsfasfasf wrote: post #4

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

Keywords: "essential" and "a little temporary".

I would call the 4th amendment fairly essential.

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

#136

Post by baddox »

mtgx wrote: post #125
ck2 wrote: post #39

Because lawmakers are terrified of proper process under our legal system, really says a lot (remember most Senators are lawyers). I guess all rights can have restrictions in this country except gun ownership. Several Senators have insisted he should NOT be mirandized a couple days after voting down background-checks for all gun sales. I don't understand how they can not implode from their lack of consistency.

What pisses me off most about fanatic gun owners who talk about their rights and being able to protect themselves in case the "government goes rogue", is that they seem to be very apathetic, or even supportive of measures such as this or of government infringing other rights like the 4th amendment, the 1st, the 5th, 6th, etc. You'd think that the people so worried about the government going rogue would be the first t…

Be careful. That kind of rhetoric is one step away from, and seems to be intended to imply, the claim that the pro-gun position is itself invalid or less valid because of other positions held by some of its proponents, which is textbook fallacy.

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

#137

Post by rhizome »

dfc wrote: post #124
rhizome wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since this is the first time I can remember hearing of law enforcement announce that Miranda was not given tells me that he's already said something and they're just getting ahead of the cycle by putting the rationale out there.

It seems that your rationale requires that you have heard of a lot of similar cases. Can you recall the other similar cases you have heard of where LEOs did not mention mirandizing the suspect?

Yes: all of them. That's what makes this one stick out to me.

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

#138

Post by onosendai »

habosa wrote: post #83
michaelhoffman wrote: post #9

Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you…

I had not heard that quote before but it really spoke to me. That's a very articulate statement of why Guantanamo and other modern injustices "in the name of freedom" are simply not so. I want every despicable terrorist to have a fair trial so that when my time in court comes (if it ever does) I know I'll have a fair chance.

It's from a play called 'A Man for All Seasons', doesn't diminish its relevance though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons#Themes

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

#139

Post by dfc »

rhizome wrote: post #137
dfc wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that your rationale requires that you have heard of a lot of similar cases. Can you recall the other similar cases you have heard of where LEOs did not mention mirandizing the suspect?

Yes: all of them. That's what makes this one stick out to me.

Name five previous cases with a public safety exception to miranda that you can think of.

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

#140

Post by pyre »

baddox wrote: post #134
pyre wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| a way to just skirt civil liberties when | it seems relevant That's exactly what it is, with good reason. When this is used, we are saying that the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect. When we're talking about the possibility of active bombs hidden within a civilian population, I would think it's a no-brainer that the rights of the people to not be blown up trumps the suspect's rights. Also, as @anigb…

If it's as simple as saying "the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect," then why not torture the suspect?

Because we, as a society, frown on it? Are you really saying that there is a thin line between Miranda-less statements being admissible in court and torture?
Post reply on HN