3 ms·

It's a bit more subtle than that. The real issue here is that the ambiguity of this statement depends a lot of the cultural context. There are plenty of communi

It's a bit more subtle than that. The real issue here is that the ambiguity of this statement depends a lot of the cultural context. There are plenty of communities in the US where that statement reads as an absolutely unambiguous request for a lawyer. It's obviously not a conditional "If you think I'm guilty, then I want a lawyer" (as the parent is attempting to parse it). But a statement of "You really think I did this? I didn't so I want a lawyer". The issue is that in communities like HN and most important where the judge and police come from, this can seem more ambiguous. The real issue is, is this misreading of ambiguity in bad faith or not.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The issue is that in communities like HN and most important where the judge and police come from, this can seem more ambiguous. No, the issue is that the police will dishonestly feign misunderstanding of any potential ambiguity out of institutional interest, and that (especially elected) trial judges are, for the most part, inclined to do the same out of personal political interest. Genuine, good-faith cultural misunderstanding is an insignificant issue; it may sometimes be present, but it's not anywhere close to the dominant issue.
ineedasername 5y ago
I agree on the subtlety. Personally I think that expressing the most miniscule thought about having a lawyer should trigger that process. In practice, the judiciary system has ruled that requests for legal counsel must be unambiguous in the wording used. At a very minimum there should be something like a Miranda warning that does not allow police to continue without-- at each stage the word "lawyer" is said-- asking "are you asserting your 6th amendment right to legals counsel? Please answer with a Yes/No." That's off the top of my head though, maybe there's a better way

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The issue is that in communities like HN and most important where the judge and police come from, this can seem more ambiguous. No, the issue is that the police will dishonestly feign misunderstanding of any potential ambiguity out of institutional interest, and that (especially elected) trial judges are, for the most part, inclined to do the same out of personal political interest. Genuine, good-faith cultural misunderstanding is an insignificant issue; it may sometimes be present, but it's not anywhere close to the dominant issue.

ineedasername 5y ago

I agree on the subtlety. Personally I think that expressing the most miniscule thought about having a lawyer should trigger that process. In practice, the judiciary system has ruled that requests for legal counsel must be unambiguous in the wording used. At a very minimum there should be something like a Miranda warning that does not allow police to continue without-- at each stage the word "lawyer" is said-- asking "are you asserting your 6th amendment right to legals counsel? Please answer with a Yes/No." That's off the top of my head though, maybe there's a better way