America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
Monsters hide behind this.
Published on July 4, 2005 By Moderateman In US Domestic
While in 1966 Miranda rights {the right to remain silent and to an attorney} was a ground breaking rule to keep cops from pounding a confession out of you, I think because of the coeuy case in fla. And the present case in Idaho, of Shasta groene, and this level 3 child molester hiding behind Miranda rights while a Childs life might hang in the balance we might want to revisit Miranda rights.

The right to remain silent when a life hangs in the balance should be revoked; this particular monster should be eligible for coercive interrogation, just like any other terrorist. Because in fact that is what a child molester does, terrorize his victims.

To be fair as panel should be present during interrogation of a defendant to make sure he or she is not tortured into a confession, but sleep deprivation and other gentle tactics should be allowed.

Why we as a country insist on protecting these monsters is beyond me. We afford more protection under the law than the victims get from the degenerate creatures.

It’s about time the people get back one of the basic freedoms that America used to stand for, the freedom from fear.

These particular evil beings move from state to state molesting and defiling our children and we get no protection from the courts.

Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jul 04, 2005
... --- ...
on Jul 04, 2005
FREE MYRRANDER NOW!
on Jul 04, 2005
#2 by Manopeace
Monday, July 04, 2005


FREE MYRRANDER NOW!


altho I agree with myrr should be freed, what does it have to do with my article?
on Jul 04, 2005
what does it have to do with my article?


Not a thing..... just sounds the same
on Jul 04, 2005
#4 by Manopeace
Monday, July 04, 2005


what does it have to do with my article?


Not a thing..... just sounds the same


you are indeed a loyal friend to myrr, and one silly man.
on Jul 04, 2005
and one silly man.


and we are BOTH point whores...don't ever forget that lil bro
on Jul 04, 2005
Ah so the reality comes to the forefront. But really, do you seriously think some people shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else? That officially not everyone deserves the best defence? The current legal system, and the same kind of system we're trying to export to Iraq at present, makes every allowance for the authorities to do their jobs. If it comes down to a life hung in the balance, regulations dictate the course. To do what you're asking, to take away people's rights, is more along Soviet Communist lines than anything else. And take heed. If you're wish is ever granted, there will be no way anyone could possibly pretend the US is the land of the free and that bulldung. Now if it doesn't bother you to allow a doormat for tyranny, all in the name of bogus security, then alright. It's not my route though.
on Jul 04, 2005
7 by Reiki-House
Monday, July 04, 2005


Ah so the reality comes to the forefront. But really, do you seriously think some people shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else


I think monsters should be treated as monsters, since they are devoid of feelings for others, why should they have any rights?
on Jul 04, 2005
I think monsters should be treated as monsters, since they are devoid of feelings for others, why should they have any rights?


This, of course, means that they don't qualify as having the right to a fair trial, right? If they look guilty, then let the cops administer justice the old fashioned way. Just beat the crap outta them, gently of course.

MM, I know you really despise those who are guilty. As do I. But, to deny constitutional right for those who may be guilty sans a fair trial is paving the way to tossing the constitution out in its entirety.

Scares the crap out of me, that's for sure. And, I haven't done anything wrong. What happens if I'm picked up in some kind of sweep, and I look like the guy who maybe did the nasty deed, but I'm not him. Are you saying that the cops have the right to commit "gentle torture" till I confess, even though I'm not guilty, just to give them what they want to hear? Is that what you're saying? What do you define as gentle torture? Sleep deprivation is likely very easy at first. Then it becomes tortuous. How about no bathroom rights? Then sheer humiliation from wetting oneself over and over is tortuous. What other "gentle tactics" do you consider appropriate? (gee, this is sounding like the Abu Graib and Gitmo torture discussions......)

I do know that the scumbags who are hiding behind miranda rights rather than disclosing a kidnap victim is horrific. But, again, there is this slippery slope thing wherein the lines for what may be acceptable have a tendency to become blurred. Not a good idea. In fact, a very, very bad idea.

I sure as shit hope you're not a cop, judge, lawyer, or anything relative to the judicial system. You'd be a really lousy candidate. In fact, I hope you never even get selected onto a jury. Seems you wanna pass down sentence without a trial. You scare the shit out of me, because you represent a faction of our society wants to do away with the state having the burdon of proof in cases. Just torture them gently till they give up what the cops want to hear, thereby not requiring the cops to make their own case. Sucky idea.
on Jul 04, 2005
9 by zinkadoodle
Monday, July 04, 2005


This, of course, means that they don't qualify as having the right to a fair trial, right? If they look guilty, then let the cops administer justice the old fashioned way. Just beat the crap outta them, gently of course.


no , no torture, a panel would oversee any questioning of these particular creeps, to make sure no torture happens, it's just that somewhere a young boy might still be alive and dieing slowly while we make sure the monsters rights are protected, slippery slope hell yes, scarey, yes to that too, but what are we to do to protect the children from this kind of crime?
on Jul 04, 2005
zink you have me so wrong, I am not the monster here, they are, and I have sat on a jury, and will sit again, I weigh carefully the evidence before making a judgement, and do NOT take the cops word as gospell.
on Jul 04, 2005
think monsters should be treated as monsters, since they are devoid of feelings for others, why should they have any rights?


Because they're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers in court, or until they plead guilty. Miranda rights know no race, color, creed, gender or sexual preference, and that's the way it needs to stay. It's in the best interests of the judicial system to have it that way....would you rather we had no Miranda rights, allowing this 'monster' to get off on a technicality?
on Jul 04, 2005
12 by dharmagrl
Monday, July 04, 2005


Because they're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers in court, or until they plead guilty. Miranda rights know no race, color, creed, gender or sexual preference, and that's the way it needs to stay. It's in the best interests of the judicial system to have it that way....would you rather we had no Miranda rights, allowing this 'monster' to get off on a technicality


again I say.... there is a segemnt of people that should be treated differently. like an convicted rapist at age 16 that raped another boy at gunpoint, then has more charges filed and was returned to prison, innocent? I do not think so.
on Jul 04, 2005
like an convicted rapist at age 16 that raped another boy at gunpoint, then has more charges filed and was returned to prison, innocent? I do not think so.


No, but he's paid his debt. He's done his time. He's entitled to constitutional protection just the same as anyone else. There's a reason courts don't allow prior offences to be bought into consideration...it's so that people who really are innocent are given a fair and unbiased trial.

Removing Miranda rights is taking a step backwards.
on Jul 04, 2005
#14 by dharmagrl
Monday, July 04, 2005


like an convicted rapist at age 16 that raped another boy at gunpoint, then has more charges filed and was returned to prison, innocent? I do not think so.


No, but he's paid his debt. He's done his time. He's entitled to constitutional protection just the same as anyone else. There's a reason courts don't allow prior offences to be bought into consideration...it's so that people who really are innocent are given a fair and unbiased trial.

Removing Miranda rights is taking a step backwards.


I am curious if you would be so quick to defend, if it was your child held captive by a monster, I say this not to start a war dharma, just out of me being curious, remember this title was asking a question and I was presenting one part of an arguement.ok? try to remember I do respect you and your opinions.
5 Pages1 2 3  Last