Yeah well that whole Miranda thing is silly anyhow. And all the rest of the Forced Self-incrimination Constitutional crap. Presumably, if you didn't have that Protection, then the bad cops would beat you until you told them what they want. This would not be so bad for Guilty folks, but it would presumably also make good guys LIE in order to avoid Torture. The flaw in this reasoning is shown by the fact that the bad cops are STILL allowed to FORCE you to testify against some ELSE. And so, if testimony regarding your own misdeeds is unreliable, then the same would be true of any testimony against someone ELSE, obtained in the same way. Yet no one seems to want a Constitutional prohibition against Forced incrimination of OTHERS.
I am eternally amazed by the behavior of perps. As far as I can tell, either you are in custody or you are free to go. In the case of a "Consensual stop", you could simply say, "Am I free to go?", and if they say yes then you do not talk to them, you leave. And in the case of a NON-Consensual Stop, you are NOT free to leave, and THEN Miranda kicks in, and you may refuse to talk. IN BOTH CASES, YOU MAY REFUSE TO TALK, so why all the rigmarole about Miranda and Terry Stops and such? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Lee Wilson" <dennisleewil...@...> wrote: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR201006\ > 0101378.html?hpid=topnews > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR20100\ > 60101378.html?hpid=topnews> > > Court rule on Miranda rights - Suspects must say they want to be silent > By JESSE J. HOLLAND The Associated Press > Tuesday, June 1, 2010; 10:59 AM > > > WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must > explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda > protections > <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supreme_court_ru\ > les_in_miranda.html> during criminal interrogations, a decision one > dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down." > > A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the > Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests > and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that > suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an > interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer. > > The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, > remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before > implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He > appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to > remain silent by remaining silent. > > But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's > conservatives, said that wasn't enough. > > "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did > not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these > simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut > off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to > remain silent." > > Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly > worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision > "turns Miranda upside down." > > "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain > silent - which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. > "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived > their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent > to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our > subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on > which those precedents are grounded." > > Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated > by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his > Miranda rights and said he understood. > > The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the > interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," > nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one > of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting > that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes." > > He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out > because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative > with the interrogating officers. > > The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession > and conviction. The high court reversed that decision. > > The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470. >
