Is it time to rethink "miranda rights"?

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 4)

drmiler

on Jul 05, 2005

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.

Sorry Zoomba but your wrong on this.

For Roman Catholic priests, the confidentiality of anything that they learn from penitents during the course of confession is absolute. This strict confidentiality is known as the "Seal of the Confessional." According to Roman Catholic Canon Law 983.1, "It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason." Priests may not reveal what they had learned during confession to anyone, even under the threat of their own death or that of others. (This is unique to the Seal of the Confessional or Seal of Confession. Many other forms of confidentiality, including in most states lawyer-client privilege, allow ethical breaches of the confidence to save the life of another.) For a priest to break that confidentiality would lead to an automatic excommunication reserved to the Holy See (Code of Canon Law No. 1388.1). In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage or require the penitent to surrender to authorities and may withhold absolution if the penitent refuses to do so. However, this is the extent of the leverage they wield...they may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities themselves.

There are limited cases where portions of a confession may be revealed to others, but always with the penitent's permission and always without actually revealing the penitent's identity. This is the case, for example, with more serious offenses. Some excommunicable offenses are reserved to the bishop or even to the Holy See, and their permission to grant absolution would first have to be obtained.

Civil authorities in the United States are usually respectful of this confidentiality. However, several years ago an ambitious attorney in Oregon secretly recorded a confession without the knowledge of the priest or the penitent involved. This lead to official protests by the local Archbishop and the Vatican. The tape has since been sealed, and the Federal Court has since ruled that the taping was in violation of the 4th Amendment, and ordered an injunction against any further tapings.

Zoomba

on Jul 05, 2005

Is the confessional in such a case protected by actual law though? I was under the impression that in terms of US Law, the Seal did not protect you if you knew of a crime that was yet to be committed.

drmiler

on Jul 05, 2005

Not as of yet. They worry about upsetting that large a block of voters.

Seal of the Confessional
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For Roman Catholic priests, the confidentiality of anything that they learn from penitents during the course of confession is absolute. This strict confidentiality is known as the Seal of the Confessional.

According to Roman Catholic Canon Law 983 §1:

The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

Priests may not reveal what they had learned during confession to anyone, even under the threat of their own death or that of others. (This is unique to the Seal of the Confessional. Many other forms of confidentiality, including – in most states – attorney-client privilege, allow ethical breaches of the confidence to save the life of another.) For a priest to break confidentiality would lead to an latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the Holy See (Code of Canon Law, 1388 §1).

In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage or require the penitent to surrender to authorities and may withhold absolution if the penitent refuses to do so. However, this is the extent of the leverage they wield;they may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities themselves.

There are limited cases where portions of a confession may be revealed to others, but always with the penitent's permission and always without actually revealing the penitent's identity. This is the case, for example, with more serious offenses, as some excommunicable offenses are reserved to the bishop or even to the Holy See, and their permission to grant absolution must be obtained.

Civil authorities in the United States are usually respectful of this confidentiality. However, several years ago an ambitious attorney in Oregon secretly recorded a confession without the knowledge of the priest or the penitent involved. This lead to official protests by the local Archbishop and the Vatican. The tape has since been sealed, and the Federal Court has since ruled that the taping was in violation of the 4th Amendment, and ordered an injunction against any further tapings.

Zoomba

on Jul 05, 2005

I stand corrected then, thanks for the info!

Dr Guy

on Jul 05, 2005

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.

How many children are in the 'Blame them'?

Moderateman

on Jul 05, 2005

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005I 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.

I was refering to the Idaho monster shades that upon capture invoked his rights immediatly.

Moderateman

on Jul 05, 2005

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005While 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.

Doc it is a moot point for law abiding people anyways, we do not get advised of miranda because we do not get arrested.

shadesofgrey

on Jul 05, 2005

I can't really log in--something is going screwy.

Sorry, MM, I got confused by the reference to the Coeuy case in Florida. I will read more carefully next time....

Moderateman

on Jul 05, 2005

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005I can't really log in--something is going screwy.Sorry, MM, I got confused by the reference to the Coeuy case in Florida. I will read more carefully next time....

tis ok shades..

Dr Guy

on Jul 05, 2005

I can't really log in--something is going screwy.

Sorry, MM, I got confused by the reference to the Coeuy case in Florida. I will read more carefully next time....

Some one sounds like they are twitterpated......

Um, hmmm.

stutefish

on Jul 05, 2005

Me?

I'm all in favor of due process as a prerequisite for putting even the most monstrous criminal in prison for his crimes.

On the other hand, I'm not the kind of guy to let the rules get in the way of saving a child's life.

My solution? Write off the trial, since the cops screwed up what must be the most obvious and easy part of the arrest: reading the suspect his rights. (I mean, come on, how hard can it be to remember to recite the simple nusery rhyme that every American child knows by hear?) Then, before letting the suspect walk, take him into a back room and beat him anyway, until the child is safe. What's a judge going to do? Rule that the cops can't rescue the child, because they didn't read the guy his rights before they hit him like a pinata until the child's location fell out?

bakerstreet

on Jul 05, 2005

Police excesses are crimes. If they deny someone their rights, if they abuse them, deny them due process, fine. Charge the policeman with a crime.

It doesnt' erase what the criminal has done, though, and evidence that can be independantly verified shouldn't be thrown out. If the prisoner leads someone to a body, you can't go back in time and stop it from happening. He was stupid, and did it without a lawyer present. If you want to censure the cops, fine, but it doesn't change the fact that he offered evidence, and the evidence should stand.

Moderateman

on Jul 06, 2005

Reply By: stutefishPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005Me?I'm all in favor of due process as a prerequisite for putting even the most monstrous criminal in prison for his crimes.On the other hand, I'm not the kind of guy to let the rules get in the way of saving a child's life.My solution? Write off the trial, since the cops screwed up what must be the most obvious and easy part of the arrest: reading the suspect his rights. (I mean, come on, how hard can it be to remember to recite the simple nusery rhyme that every American child knows by hear?) Then, before letting the suspect walk, take him into a back room and beat him anyway, until the child is safe. What's a judge going to do? Rule that the cops can't rescue the child, because they didn't read the guy his rights before they hit him like a pinata until the child's location fell out?

maybe they could puntuate the miranda warnings like this YOU {pound, kick bite} HAVE {smash punch} THE{poke eye} RIGHT thump kick} TO {rip tear rend} Remain{set on fire} you get the point.

Moderateman

on Jul 06, 2005

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Tuesday, July 05, 2005Police excesses are crimes. If they deny someone their rights, if they abuse them, deny them due process, fine. Charge the policeman with a crime.

agreed , but as you pointed out why let one crime {police violence} erase another one {child molesting}

dharmagrl

on Jul 06, 2005

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.

That's EXACTLY my point! If they were so concerned about finding this missing boy, why didn't they provide him with counsel immediately? If they wanted the information he was holding and knew that he had invoked his Miranda rights, why in the hell didn't they move their asses?

This has less to do with Miranda and more to do with the cops and DA's office ignoring his request.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!