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

181–190 of 270 posts

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

#181

Post by JoeAltmaier »

ghayes wrote: post #84
InclinedPlane wrote: post #47

Jesus people. Read about what the "public safety exception" actually is before going all police-state-paranoid. If the FBI or police try to misuse or abuse the public safety exception to attempt to get Tsarnaev to incriminate himself then they are going to have some fun times in court and get their asses handed to them. I'm skeptical that that's what's happening. I'm also skeptical that he's not been read his rights…

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night" [id.] This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. There is definitely something about this application of the "public safety exception", and the stare decisis discussed in the article, that gives cause for…

Lets remember, this guys is just one guy. They have enough on him to put him away for life, even should he say nothing, ever.

Public safety is involved because, lets see, millions of people were locked in their homes, a public curfew was in effect, the dead were piling up, and no one knew how many more bombs or co-conspirators were still at large.

They have a duty to learn the full extent of the terrorism, and protect the public, First. Then, worry about prosecuting this one guy's sorry ass.

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

#182

Post by Steuard »

m_d wrote: post #169
anigbrowl wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For heaven's sake. Assuming that they have arrested the correct person, he and his brother had a stack of tactical explosives that they were throwing around with abandon, as well as having bombed a major public event with loss of life and a huge level of injury. Of course the public (via its designated law enforcement agents) has a legitimate interest in establishing whether all possible explosive devices have been f…

Assuming that they have arrested the correct person This is not something that you get to assume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

The previous poster didn't say "We can assume they have arrested the correct person", they said (in effect), "If we assume for the sake of argument that they have arrested the correct person". Your point is absolutely valid, but entirely separate from this discussion of Miranda.

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

#183

Post by Blahah »

jeffdavis wrote: post #113
lurker14 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they cared so much about public safety, they should be willing to disregard a bit of testimony to get it. It's insane that confessions are admissible at all really, since they are almost always false.

Can you provide a reference?

This paper cites two previous studies showing false confession rates of 14% and 20%: http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Russ... [pdf]

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

#184

Post by mcgwiz »

lbarrow wrote: post #114
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…

Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really important, but in this case it would have served a very important purpose. The Bush administration systematically created a legal netherworld for people they captured on suspicion of terrorism -- people usually referred to as "enemy combatants". They weren't arrested p…

Agreed. I will add that, in the absence of the Executive Branch making such a substantial signal (as opposed to the rhetorical signals in Obama's speech), at least the "fourth branch" has shone a light on the matter. It is a weak light no doubt, and is characteristic of the spineless institution of local broadcast journalism, but the fact that the issue was mentioned at all implies an evolution of the American psyche on this. If Obama, in his heart, believes in "fairness and justice for all", he has no better opportunity to demonstrate it.

Also, I keep thinking about how events like this (e.g. 9/11) engender sympathy and support from other nations. America can build on that goodwill--rather than dishonoring, abusing, or squandering it--and regain a fraction of international moral stature by ensuring Tsarnaev is treated as legally and morally fair as possible. This is a longer term, strategic goal (i.e. politically, socially difficult) that has been undermined and overlooked for too long.

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

#185

Post by benihana »

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…

>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.

Jesus this is scary thinking. You're saying the rights of a suspect go out the window when we can contrive a situation where you think other people's rights are more important?

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

#186

Post by twoodfin »

zecho wrote: post #63
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.

Huh? That'd be exactly how I'd want it to be used. Information on who his brother met with on his last trip to Russia, for example, is fairly useless in prosecuting #2, but as an intelligence lead it could be invaluable.

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

#187

Post by youngerdryas »

mcgwiz wrote: post #184
lbarrow wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really important, but in this case it would have served a very important purpose. The Bush administration systematically created a legal netherworld for people they captured on suspicion of terrorism -- people usually referred to as "enemy combatants". They weren't arrested p…

Agreed. I will add that, in the absence of the Executive Branch making such a substantial signal (as opposed to the rhetorical signals in Obama's speech), at least the "fourth branch" has shone a light on the matter. It is a weak light no doubt, and is characteristic of the spineless institution of local broadcast journalism, but the fact that the issue was mentioned at all implies an evolution of the American psyche…

>regain a fraction of international moral stature

By reading him his miranda rights? He is going to be put to death. The US doesn't need to engender sympathy it needs a credible peer.

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

#188

Post by kvb »

Blahah wrote: post #183
jeffdavis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a reference?

This paper cites two previous studies showing false confession rates of 14% and 20%: http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Russ... [pdf]

Good reference. Seems a far cry from "almost always false".

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

#189

Post by gutnor »

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…

It is evident in this case. However, with almost any crime, the right of the people could be considered to trump the suspect right.

It is a normal and sane that a society scrutinise those cases, to make sure the exceptional stays exceptional and not the first step down a slippery slope.

There is an argument for fear in this case. The amount of exception done for terrorism "seems" quite big, compared to, for example, the cases of proven criminal let go for technical reason. Yet, there does not "seem" to be the same amount of exception to avoid due process in the name of public safety.

Also, other exception, like arresting money instead of the people in case of the war on drug. It has been proven many time that this quite clever exception, has been widely abused.

(disclaimer: "seem" between quotes because lack of hard data, and skills to find them. Would be interesting to have them though.)

Post reply on HN