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

141–150 of 270 posts

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

#141

Post by thomasz »

pyre wrote: post #127
mtgx wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some really twisted mental gymnastics there. Torture is bad, because it's torture. It doesn't matter if you're a criminal or a human-monkey. How can they get away with it for so long? At least they didn't say torture is legal "because he's not a white guy", but their logic here is not that far off from that.

They are also getting away with it because the torture isn't of the "strap electrodes to his genitals" variety, which most people would immediately reject. Stuff like "loud music," "putting a holy book in a toilet," or "make him think he's drowning," don't evoke the same sort of immediate reaction. If the administration were openly performing at "Inquisition" levels of torture, there would be massive public outcry.

I fail to see the difference between "waterboarding" and "strap electrodes to his genitals" torture.

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

#142

Post by analog »

Derbasti wrote: post #100

"if prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal" I find this increadibly dangerous. Does that mean the police will move against "potential" crimes? Against people making plans? I hereby jokingly declare that I am planning to steal a cucumber at my local supermarket. Does this make me a goal of preventive action? Did I commit a thought-crime? 1984 and Minority Report come to mind when people say stuf…

Conspiracy is already a crime. Your cucumber example wouldn't attract a response because nobody actually cares enough to prosecute it. For example if your cucumber was made of solid goal then you would become a target of preventive action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

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

#143

Post by SilentStump »

Dzhokhar was in no state to hear his Miranda rights. He was in serious need of medical attention, so the highest priority is his medical attention, not reading an injured person his miranda rights. Also, I'm not sure if he'd even have been able to repsond that he understood.

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

#144

Post by pyre »

cinquemb wrote: post #98
ptaipale wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is slightly unreasonable to require the State™ to present evidence in court at this time, when the first priority is to take the wounded suspect to hospital, and ensure that there are no explosives left behind that could kill others. I do believe that the State™ (in this case, not my state, as I'm not American) has the right and the responsibility to do what they are doing.

You also left out the plan to interrogate him for information that could be admissible in court that would/could conflit with self incrimination as reference in the 5th amendment. But hey, lets us tort laws because the ends justify the means, because we all know something like this will never happen again once this person or all possible related persons are brought to justice.

If you don't like the "Public Safety Exception," then lobby to get rid of it. I wouldn't suggest doing it in this case because there is likely enough evidence to convict him of multiple serious crimes without him uttering a peep (i.e. this isn't a good case to push towards the Supreme Court to make a decision on).

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

#145

Post by alan_cx »

There is literally no point having rights at all if there are exceptions to those rights which can be used but authority when things get difficult or controversial. A right is universal, if there is an exception, its is no longer universal, there for no longer a right. If a right is not universal, it becomes a privilege.

The whole point of rights is to protect individuals when things get difficult, when people's emotions or political bias over ride actual justice.

When everything is normal and fine, what do you need rights for? Nothing what so ever. You only rely on them in the extremes, when things go wrong or when you are being unfairly treated by the state (or business). But that is exactly when government, law enforcement, etc want to suspend them, and they do. So, in the end, it become totally pointless.

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

#146

Post by melvinmt »

shaaaaawn wrote: post #121
firefoxman1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not comparing the Nazi party to our own government. I'm simply giving an example of how easily the term "anyone endangering [country name]'s security" can be abused.

Actually, you're using a slippery slope argument and fueling it with a hitler reference.

Also known as an argumentum ad Hitlerum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

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

#147

Post by anigbrowl »

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 it's not simple. There are interests to be balanced and you can bet that defense counsel will challenge that decision pre-trial, at trial, and at appeal - and rightly so, it's not something that should be used with impunity.

Although creative writers love to put law enforcement characters on the horns of dilemmas like this because it makes for great drama, in real life the PIE does not get invoked that often because law enforcement doesn't want to risk blowing a case on it. Here, we're not balancing the public interest against all the rights of the suspect, but against his right to given notice of his legal situation. He could still clam up, ask for a lawyer, have one provided for him if he can't hire one etc., but the difference is that they're entitled under the PIE to ask him for information about outstanding risk factors (and only that) instead of giving him an advisory.

I'm guessing a bit here, but I have a hunch that if he said 'look, I set off those bombs on Monday, I feel terrible...' the interrogating officer would actually respond by saying 'we can discuss that later, now I just want to know about whether there are other bombs or weapons,' both because that's the actual priority and to avoid later legal challenges to do with 'fruits of the poisonous tree,' a colloquial term for improperly acquired evidence.

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

#148

Post by jackpirate »

pyre wrote: post #127
mtgx wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some really twisted mental gymnastics there. Torture is bad, because it's torture. It doesn't matter if you're a criminal or a human-monkey. How can they get away with it for so long? At least they didn't say torture is legal "because he's not a white guy", but their logic here is not that far off from that.

They are also getting away with it because the torture isn't of the "strap electrodes to his genitals" variety, which most people would immediately reject. Stuff like "loud music," "putting a holy book in a toilet," or "make him think he's drowning," don't evoke the same sort of immediate reaction. If the administration were openly performing at "Inquisition" levels of torture, there would be massive public outcry.

You have a lot more respect for the public than I do.

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

#149

Post by Derbasti »

analog wrote: post #142
Derbasti wrote: post #100

"if prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal" I find this increadibly dangerous. Does that mean the police will move against "potential" crimes? Against people making plans? I hereby jokingly declare that I am planning to steal a cucumber at my local supermarket. Does this make me a goal of preventive action? Did I commit a thought-crime? 1984 and Minority Report come to mind when people say stuf…

Conspiracy is already a crime. Your cucumber example wouldn't attract a response because nobody actually cares enough to prosecute it. For example if your cucumber was made of solid goal then you would become a target of preventive action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

Luckily, this applies mostly to English speaking countries. The rest of the world seems to require some actual criminal action for prosecution.

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

#150

Post by thenomad »

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?

Well, there are other arguments against the use of torture - like the fact it produces extremely unreliable information.
Post reply on HN