3 ms·
Indeed. " The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule" So, not much of a commitment a
by lurker14 13y ago
Indeed. " The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule"
So, not much of a commitment at all. I am so committed to my wife that I only recognize one exception to my marriage vows: if I get a chance with a really attractive woman, then not only can I do it, but I can charge my wife for the cost of dinner.
- lttlrck 13y agoExceptions breed ambiguity. No turn on red.
- rdl 13y agoI can see the merit in both ironclad protection against self incrimination, and the public safety value of making a scene safe. I think the proper balance would probably be to allow physical evidence produced under "implied duress" (being in confinement/control and asked without being notified of Miranda rights), but not statements. So, maybe 25% more restrictive than the current legal standard. The true problem with Mirandizing someone is that anyone who isn't a fucking moron will realize "oh, I shouldn't say anything until I get an attorney". Physical evidence is assumed to not depend upon statements to discover, but it certainly will be discovered faster with a statement. This argument isn't actually 100% valid in some scenes and with some types of evidence. I don't have as much of a problem with lack of notification of someone of his rights vs. not giving him rights when demanded, too -- interrogating someone without Mirandizing him, in a very limited fashion, is less objectionable than doing the same interrogation under direct threat or execution of death/physical attack, drugs, etc.