3 ms·
It's entirely to the authorities whether to Mirandize the suspect or not. Perhaps they think they already have so much evidence that they don't need any statem
by thrownaway2424 14y ago
It's entirely to the authorities whether to Mirandize the suspect or not. Perhaps they think they already have so much evidence that they don't need any statements from the interrogation to convict. In that case, they're just looking for information.
Remember, the authorities are perfectly free to interrogate you as much as they like without reading you any warnings at all. It's only at trial that the warnings become relevant. If your case isn't going to trial, it's not relevant.
- IgorPartola 14y agoAgreed. You have no right to the warning and the warning itself is only there to protect the evidence the authorities may gather. My issue is that despite the horrific things that the suspect allegedly, and in my mind certainly, has done, he has certain rights, like the right to remain silent and the right to representation. Whether the case goes to trial or not, is irrelevant to how the detainee is treated. Otherwise, the police can pick you up, rough you up, prevent you from contacting anyone on the outside world, and then release you, saying that they never intended for you to go to trial, so it's all good. > Remember, the authorities are perfectly free to interrogate you as much as they like without reading you any warnings at all. I don't believe they are. I believe they need probable cause, and they need to charge me with something first. Otherwise, I would be living in a police state where I am presumed guilty unless proven innocent. The warning itself is meaningless. It only comes into play if I can reasonably claim that I did not know the Constitution.