Home > Political Opinion, US News > Diluting The Miranda Rights For Personal Gain

Diluting The Miranda Rights For Personal Gain


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.     “It’s death by a thousand cuts,” Fisher said. “For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects.”     All the more reason that JUDGES should not be appointed.  They should have to vie for their positions the same a REPRESENTATIVES, with the same term limits.

So as one can see the people screwed themselves in to possible areas at the moment.

The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can’t afford one.
The court’s three decisions “indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat,” Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights group. “But I don’t think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead.”
The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.
This year’s Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.

All the more reason that JUDGES should not be appointed.  They should have to vie for their positions the same a REPRESENTATIVES, with the same term limits.

So as one can see the people screwed themselves in two possible areas at the moment.

  • Ø(a)  allowing one to two people to vote on any particular legislative item
  • Ø as they them self deem fit.  Not caring what the whole views are on the subject matter
  • Ø(b) electing to allow an individual to represent the needs of the whole.

That is like picking a number, spinning the ROULETTE wheel, praying and hoping that

you picked the winning number.

Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&bID=537808970#ixzz0vTlNkRlm

All Common Law Rights are reserved explicitly without prejudice
UCC “1-103,” “1-105,” “1-308.”

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

NOTICE:
Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) and
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may read this email without
warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or
legislative oversight. We in this country have no recourse or protection.
Everything we type may be used against us to detain us in a secret prison,
where we will be held without right of habeas corpus or right to trial by
jury.

By A. Lindley

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

Advertisements
Categories: Political Opinion, US News
  1. No comments yet.
  1. August 14, 2010 at 2:34 am
  2. August 30, 2010 at 4:56 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: