Miranda overhaul

[grizzaholic]

WASHINGTON – You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.

You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?

The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.

The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_miranda" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

WASHINGTON – You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.

You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?

The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.

The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_miranda" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FYI- Miranda vs. Arizona is not a 'right'.

Miranda vs. Arizona denotes the requirement to remind stupid people to STFU. It has nothing to do with a 'right', unless we have somehow made it a right for fvcking idiots to be constantly reminded to STFU.

Even liberal sources for years have acknowledged that some of the hoops law enforcement agencies jump through to endure that they have complied with Miranda have become borderline ridiculous. Plus, precious few innocents have ever been 'saved' by the requirement. Miranda, by and large, has kept more criminals out of prison than any other government fiat in the history of this country.

That being said, I am actually a fan of the idea of Miranda. Amcits are entitled to the constitutional right to be free from self-incrimination, regarless of how fvcking stupid they might be. I agree with the idea that they should be reminded prior to any interrogation. However, I disagree with people somehow making the argument that the requirement for the reminder is somehow a "right". It is not. It is merely the American way of trying to be fair, and as usual, the attempt at fairness has become a way to try to cheat justice.

You have the right to remain silent. You do not have the right to be reminded over and over not to be a dumb fvck.

If Miranda IS a right, then show me where the Constitution delineates that right. (Be careful here... you might want to actually READ Miranda vs. Arizona first).