"evidence thrown out simply because you didn't recite a little limerick that KIDS KNOW BY HEART."
The problem I see with that is the simple fact that if it's just a silly little limerick that kids know by heart, what's an officer of the law's excuse for not reciting the so-called 'little limerick' when it's the one thing, the ONE SIMPLE thing, that an arresting cop has to recite. If it's kids words, why can't the cop just play along? When you get under the surface of it, it's pretty stupid when a cop or a law enforcement officer doesn't read the suspect his rights. And that's because the law men know they have to read the suspects their rights if they DON'T WANT TO SEE THEIR CASE GET THROWN OUT OF COURT. The cops know what they have to do to make a solid case. As do the attorneys. As does the judge. When one of the links fails to connect then the pyramid collapses. My point is that we all know the rules, and for some cop to ignore the rules is inexcusable. That 'little limeric' is the corner stone of your laws so it's fair to say everyone involved has as obligation to play along no matter how silly the law is and no matter how vicious the crime is.

RH: because the rules don't make sense. As was just said, these people have been arrested before. They know their rights. It's stinking common sense anyway. You don't want the police to know you killed someone? KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

If a cop beats the hell out of someone to get a confession then adress the abuse, address the inconsistancies in the confession. Something. These people lead police to corpses and then just take it back? How can you deny what has already happened?

Address the fact that ignorance of the law can put you in jail, but ignorance of your rights is a get out of jail free card? I build a new deck on my house without getting a building permit, I get fined. Did anyone tell me that? Was there some meeting I missed? Nope.

Why do THEY get to plead ignorance, and yet somehow we're supposed to know hundreds of volumes of civil and criminal law by heart? If 'ignorance of the law' is no excuse, then neither should 'ignorance of your rights' be an out.

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?

--In terms of a terrorist(defined as one who uses violence to push forth a point,i.e. uni-bomber,etc...), NO, since they so kindly decided to take another ones right to live...they should forfeit theirs.....

To me, the foundation of our legal system states that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You break a law, you are punished, even if you didn't know it was a law.

That said, someone, please address why ignorance of your rights is an 'out'. I'm sorry to keep banging this drum, but it is a terrible inconsistancy in the argument that these serial criminals should be coached as to their rights over and over each time they are arrested.

33 by Reiki-House Monday, July 04, 2005

evidence thrown out simply because you didn't recite a little limerick that KIDS KNOW BY HEART."

reiki here in america ignorance of the law is not an excuse, why should someone not knowing miranda be an exception?

34 by BakerStreet Monday, July 04, 2005

If a cop beats the hell out of someone to get a confession then adress the abuse, address the inconsistancies in the confession. Something. These people lead police to corpses and then just take it back? How can you deny what has already happened?

this is why I say empanel a defense lawyer and a prosacuter, there to observe and make sure no torture is happening, but rights? fruck em I say

36 by BakerStreet Monday, July 04, 2005

To me, the foundation of our legal system states that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You break a law, you are punished, even if you didn't know it was a law. That said, someone, please address why ignorance of your rights is an 'out'. I'm sorry to keep banging this drum, but it is a terrible inconsistancy in the argument that these serial criminals should be coached as to their rights over and over each time they are arrested.

most carreer criminals know the law better than the cops do.

"most carreer criminals know the law better than the cops do."

*nod*

reading Miranda rights for most of these people is akin to saying "Yes, but when you arrested him did you turn around three times and click your heels together? No, well, then. This man didn't get his due process."

I mean, let's have a poll. Does ANYONE here not know the miranda recitation? Does anyone? MAYBE illegal immigrants. MAYBE foriegn criminals caught here. Most certainly anyone that has evern been read their rights has been made aware of them, regardless of the homogeneous knowledge we all have culturally.

Saying they didn't know, the fourth or fifth time they've been arrested, is silly.

In England and Wales the caution that the police are obliged to give a suspect was changed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) to:

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence".

A little less long-winded than the whole Miranda deal, but making two important points:
1. you do not have to say anything, but
2. if you don't, your silence can be used as evidence in court. (Needless to say, no-one can be convicted on the basis of their silence alone).

While very few would like to see Couey and the other creep suffer horrendously, we cannot compromise our rights for expedience.  Once we start, where do people draw the line.  What is reasonable to you and me, is not reasonable to Judges and others.

It is a slippery slope that once began is almost impossible to stop the slide.

Reply By: ChakgogkaPosted: Monday, July 04, 2005In England and Wales the caution that the police are obliged to give a suspect was changed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) to:"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence".A little less long-winded than the whole Miranda deal, but making two important points:1. you do not have to say anything, but2. if you don't, your silence can be used as evidence in court. (Needless to say, no-one can be convicted on the basis of their silence alone).

I like that rule, maybe we should adopt sdomething similar

Reply By: little_whipPosted: Monday, July 04, 2005The 5th Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

and the supremes just threw this part of the 5th out, why not amend the rest?

I think that you are missing the point that the "monster" asked for his lawyer TWICE and the police ignored him.

The police didn't fail to read him Mirranda Rights--they failed to provide him counsel when he asked for it more than once.

These officiers are the ones who are letting him off on a technicality--they know the law, the rules that they have to play by...so if you want to "blame" someone, blame them.

Hey RH,

You forget that this issue has nothing to do with you since your not American. It applies to US Citizens, which I have been told you are not. Thought I might remind you.

As for this whole thing. Its really a non-issue for most cops all. We have learned to work within the rules and really have no problem with this whole thing. When we question someone, they do not need to be read their rights unless they meet criteria.

1. They are in custody (Not just arrested, but not free to leave)
and
2. You are asking questions about a specific crime in which you suspect the person being asked.

If you don't meet those two I do not need to read you anything. Now I can arrest you and ask you many things without reading your rights to you. And if you make statements about a crime unrelated to the one I am asking you questions about, which believe it or not happens a lot(criminals are very dumb most of the time), thats admissible also. Also if I see you commit a crime, I don't need to ask you anything at all. The rights issues have long ago stopped being a pain to Law Enforcement. I have been a cop for over 24 years now and am still one. I teach this issue at my police academy and we joke about how it used to be overused so much. It still is in some parts of the country that do not keep up on current court cases.

One of the tools we like to use, like I said before was to place two suspects involved in the same crime in a patrol car together with the video camera facing back and the audio pickup on. They alomst always talk about the crime and what they are going to say to us, and its all on tape. The courts have held you have no right to privacy in a police car. Another tool we use is taping all outgoing phone calls from the jails. There are signs posted all over the place the phone calls are recorded and can be used in court and they still get on them and talk about the crimes with friends or co-defendants.

Many times people under arrest begin to tell you things shortly after you arrest them or make statements before you even say anything to them. I don't have to say a thing and let them ramble on.

So this is really not a problem. Now what happened in the case of the CHILD MURDERER/ABUSER where they were questioning him and he said after he was read his rights that he wanted a lawyer, they should have stopped and provided him one. That is not a problem. I would need to read the entire transscript but I think that they had enough before he did that anyway. But confessions are not the best evidence anyway. Physical evidence is usally what you want more so than verbal statements/admissions/confessions from the suspect. Jurors love physical evidence and it has been shown that they give physical evidence more weight than confessions. No one needs to panic yet. It is very very unlikly that this scum will ever see the light of day again, with or without the confession.

Just my 2 cents worth..

Does the right to remain silent/not incriminate yourself give you a shield against revealing where a dieing child is being held? If you locked a kid up in a foot locker and left him there to slowly die, if there's reason to believe the kid may still be alive when the police pick you up, is it acceptable to hide behind the 5th amendment?

A priest can NOT remain silent if they are told in confession of a crime that has yet to be committed. They can't say anything about already committed crimes, but the confessional does not protect events yet to happen.

A lawyer can not hide behind attorney-client privledge if the client tells the attorney where the dieing (but not yet dead) child is being held. If they remain silent they become party to the murder.

These are two instances where you could pretty much confess to genocide and the two are legally (or morally) bound to not disclose what you tell them. But if a life hangs in the balance, they're obligated to come forth. Why should the 5th ammendment allow someone to commit murder? Why do the criminals recieve greather protections than the victims or the system that must deal with them?

Attorney-client privledge and the confessional have exceptions written into them. Exceptions for extreme circumstances. Why then aren't there similar exceptions in the legal system? I'm not talking void the 5th for someone who robbed a bank, or killed someone... I'm saying we need to approach things differently, give a bit more leeway when a suspect is thought to hold someone's life in his hands at the time of arrest. If we don't waive the 5th in that case, I think we need to modify law somewhat so the punishment as a result of their silence is much much worse.