US Supreme Court abridges Miranda Rights

[Edi]

ShadowDragon8685, what the fuck is your malfunction? Your ability to turn any reasonable thread to a complete trainwreck is nothing short of astounding.

Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills would have no trouble understanding what Kamakazie Sith and several of the other posters are saying in this thread.

You don't have a lot of time to shape up before you're shipped out if you keep this shit up.

[RedImperator]

Anything that is effective at protecting the innocent from being called guilty will also remove an easy way of proving guilt in the event that someone happens to be guilty. Think about it. The reason that people use tactics like railroading the subject into a confession at all is because it's an easy way to get guilty people to admit to what they did. The cost is that it's also an easy way to get innocent people to admit to what they didn't do. If you bar the tactic because of how it affects the innocent, you're also protecting the guilty.

I don't think that's a problem. If the price of protecting the innocent is protecting the guilty, I suspect it's worth it.

I remember a statistics professor once explaining the fundamental problem for engineers who design airport metal detectors:

1. If you design the system to minimize false negatives, you'll maximize false positives.
2. If you design the system to minimize false positives, you'll maximize false negatives.
3. If you design the system to minimize both, it will cost a fortune.

I suspect that can be generalized to any "system", human, mechanical, or electronic, which is trying to sort "positives" and "negatives", regardless of what "positive" or "negative" happen to mean.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it's more accurate to say it's there to protect everybody, guilty or innocent, but due to the way these things play out guilty people are disproportionately represented in that category.

But it's not. Procedural rights are only meant to protect guilty people. They deliberately withhold relevant evidence from a jury.

They also prevent unreliable evidence from being used in place of real evidence. People can go to jail on the basis of what they said to the police even if it was a misunderstanding. They can incriminate themselves, without being guilty, by saying the wrong things.

Remember that evidence obtained by police interrogation isn't just limited to signed confessions. It can include "the suspect's alibi contradicted itself in several places" when the police spent three hours in the middle of the night asking you to repeat the story. It can include "the victim was known to the suspect, and the suspect commented that he did not like the victim" when the victim was some universally known and universally unpopular local figure. It can include a lot of things.

"You have the right to remain silent" is a lot more extensive than "you have the right not to formally confess to a crime." It covers more territory, and that territory needs to be covered.

I remember a statistics professor once explaining the fundamental problem for engineers who design airport metal detectors:

1. If you design the system to minimize false negatives, you'll maximize false positives.
2. If you design the system to minimize false positives, you'll maximize false negatives.
3. If you design the system to minimize both, it will cost a fortune.

Ha. Yeah, you always have to compromise between minimizing false negatives and minimizing false positives.

I tend to lean closer to (2) than to (1) in a judicial system. False positives (innocent people being punished) are a much greater sin in a judiciary than false negatives (failure to find and punish a criminal).

[Master of Ossus]

They also prevent unreliable evidence from being used in place of real evidence.

As a general rule, that's not true. Merely because evidence is unreliable does not exclude it from trial.

People can go to jail on the basis of what they said to the police even if it was a misunderstanding. They can incriminate themselves, without being guilty, by saying the wrong things.

Which, presumably, they'd be able to go back in court and fix.

Remember that evidence obtained by police interrogation isn't just limited to signed confessions. It can include "the suspect's alibi contradicted itself in several places" when the police spent three hours in the middle of the night asking you to repeat the story. It can include "the victim was known to the suspect, and the suspect commented that he did not like the victim" when the victim was some universally known and universally unpopular local figure. It can include a lot of things.

"You have the right to remain silent" is a lot more extensive than "you have the right not to formally confess to a crime." It covers more territory, and that territory needs to be covered.

True, I'm not claiming that the Fifth Amendment cannot extend protection to someone who's innocent. I'm saying that the historical rationales for the Fifth Amendment, including as interpreted by the Miranda case and its progeny, are not centered around protection of the innocent, and interpretation of the Fifth Amendment has never focused on the idea that the right not to incriminate oneself may benefit people who are innocent. The Fifth Amendment was written to avoid the "cruel trilemma" of self-incrimination, perjury (by claiming that you didn't do it on the stand), and judicial sanction for refusing to testify. None of those were conceptualized as being important to someone who is innocent. Fifth Amendment interpretation has always been centered around this notion, and benefits of the Fifth Amendment to someone who is innocent are purely incidental to protecting the rights of people who are guilty.

This is specifically noted by Brogan v. US.

The second line of defense that petitioner invokes for the “exculpatory no” doctrine is inspired by the Fifth Amendment. He argues that a literal reading of §1001 violates the “spirit” of the Fifth Amendment because it places a “cornered suspect” in the “cruel trilemma” of admitting guilt, remaining silent, or falsely denying guilt. Brief for Petitioner 11. This “trilemma” is wholly of the guilty suspect’s own making, of course. An innocent person will not find himself in a similar quandary (as one commentator has put it, the innocent person lacks even a “lemma,” Allen, The Simpson Affair, Reform of the Criminal Justice Process, and Magic Bullets, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 989, 1016 (1996)). And even the honest and contrite guilty person will not regard the third prong of the “trilemma” (the blatant lie) as an available option. The bon mot “cruel trilemma” first appeared in Justice Goldberg’s opinion for the Court in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of N. Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964), where it was used to explain the importance of a suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when subpoenaed to testify in an official inquiry. Without that right, the opinion said, he would be exposed “to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.” Id., at 55. In order to validate the “exculpatory no,” the elements of this “cruel trilemma” have now been altered–ratcheted up, as it were, so that the right to remain silent, which was the liberation from the original trilemma, is now itself a cruelty. We are not disposed to write into our law this species of compassion inflation.

Emphasis added.

Thus, that the Fifth Amendment extends the same rights to people who are innocent as it does to people who are guilty is wholly ancillary to the main point: the Fifth Amendment is, was, and has always been meant exclusively to protect the guilty.

[Spoonist]

Someone asked what the european take was. In the EU its based on the ECHR (wiki). All EU citizens can take their legal system to the EU court on human rights (wiki) and get an overruling of their case if their rights where violated. EU member states are obliged to follow its verdict.
There are other states that trade a lot with the EU that are in the strasbourg court's jurisdiction. (Like Turkey )

Here is the relevant part

3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Note that the right to silence is not among them. But that the court claims that this lies within the 'fair trial' part. Something which it has ruled on.
But as to having them read to you like Miranda, nope, although some countries do have something like that like Germany's § 136 Strafprozessordnung. But none do it like the US.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The U.S. in many ways exceeds Europe and the civilized world in civil libertarianism, and especially of freedom of speech and expression, and even in many cases protection to the accused.

[Spoonist]

The U.S. in many ways exceeds Europe and the civilized world in civil libertarianism, and especially of freedom of speech and expression, and even in many cases protection to the accused.

I think that you have to elaborate a bit on that, otherwise it just looks like nationalistic wanking without any substance.
Note that the opposite can be argued as well. Especially given laws implemented in the aftermath of 911.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The U.S. in many ways exceeds Europe and the civilized world in civil libertarianism, and especially of freedom of speech and expression, and even in many cases protection to the accused.

I think that you have to elaborate a bit on that, otherwise it just looks like nationalistic wanking without any substance.
Note that the opposite can be argued as well. Especially given laws implemented in the aftermath of 911.

Britain's disgraceful libel laws, which of course at the end of the day work much harder for privilege and power than truth and the public: Noam Chomsky had to remove a sentence describing Henry Kissinger as guilty of war crimes, a claim about as controversial as the sky is blue by any criteria; political speech should not be chained in such a fashion. Most of the Continent is in love with "hate speech" laws which of course leave kept intellectuals room to rave about Arabs. One imagines that while the marginal Antisemites are outright banned (as is probably also the case in Canada), intellectuals are free to say extraordinarily racist things about Palestinians, people who "breed, bleed and advertise their misery", and can there be any doubt they often incite violence and oppression against undesirables, especially abroad? The right to hate becomes a privilege under these restrictions. And of course apparently in France a Holocaust denier professor can be expelled by the State for not having good history; a purely politically motivated pretext, and I'm certain no one bothers noting that the State now claims for itself the Right to Decide What History Is, and punish you for non-conformity.

And you must be unfamiliar with my record of statements about the U.S. in general as a civilized society if you think I'm a nationalist wanker.

EDIT: For those curious, the "breed, bleed, and advertise their misery" quote is from Ruth R. Wisse, the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and Professor of Comparative Literature at Harvard University. As Alexander Cockburn put it: "What bothers Wisse is the 'failure of nerve' of American Jewish intellectuals; said failure being squeamishness about the shootings and beatings meted out to the breeders."

[Zed]

Psssst. Europeans tend to take the Palestinian side. That doesn't jive well with your story.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Psssst. Europeans tend to take the Palestinian side. That doesn't jive well with your story.

My conception of freedom of expression and civil libertarianism is not dependent on it only working on behalf of the people I, or any other special group, decrees as righteous and good.

But I don't think it would be that controversial that hate speech laws, in at least Canada and the UK, would damn the poor, stupid, white racist, while being just fine with the Harvard intellectual and republishing such "work".

[Spoonist]

I think that you have to elaborate a bit on that, otherwise it just looks like nationalistic wanking without any substance.

And you must be unfamiliar with my record of statements about the U.S. in general as a civilized society if you think I'm a nationalist wanker.

Read my wording again.

[Zed]

Psssst. Europeans tend to take the Palestinian side. That doesn't jive well with your story.

My conception of freedom of expression and civil libertarianism is not dependent on it only working on behalf of the people I, or any other special group, decrees as righteous and good.

But I don't think it would be that controversial that hate speech laws, in at least Canada and the UK, would damn the poor, stupid, white racist, while being just fine with the Harvard intellectual and republishing such "work".

Hate speech laws practically only apply if the intention is to propagate hatred. So they're more likely to indict an intellectual, because he's more likely to have a platform.

[Aaron]

My conception of freedom of expression and civil libertarianism is not dependent on it only working on behalf of the people I, or any other special group, decrees as righteous and good.

But I don't think it would be that controversial that hate speech laws, in at least Canada and the UK, would damn the poor, stupid, white racist, while being just fine with the Harvard intellectual and republishing such "work".

In order to be charged with hate speech in Canada, you have to be inciting hatred. Saying "Arabs fuck camels" isn't hate speech it's racism. Encouraging people to kill Arabs, is hate speech.

[Zed]

For the record, I recognize that the United States has greater freedom of speech than Europe does. I just don't think that's necessarily a good thing.

[Spoonist]

Oups, hit enter when I was editing... Sorry. This should have been the continuation of the 'wording' post.

IP, please note that I'm not at this moment putting forth these arguments as my own, only showing that your view his highly contested.

Britain's disgraceful libel laws, which of course at the end of the day work much harder for privilege and power than truth and the public: Noam Chomsky had to remove a sentence describing Henry Kissinger as guilty of war crimes, a claim about as controversial as the sky is blue by any criteria; political speech should not be chained in such a fashion.

Which can be compared to the ability to 'sue' people in the US for saying such things. The chilling effect is mostly a US phenomenon and not a british one. Add to this the active censorship of the massmedia in the US.
So the reverse could be argued, again you should elaborate more giving a counter example from the US. Also note that if you pick a law which exist in one country only you open yourself up to comparison vs states in the US. It would be better for your argument to pick more examples that are common to a majority of europe.

Most of the Continent is in love with "hate speech" laws...

If you are familiar with the argument then you should know that in europe this is seen as advancing civil liberties and not culling them. This because the liberty of the one on the receiving end of the hate/threat is considered worth more than the free speech liberty of the giving end. So its just a matter of subjective opinion which should weigh more heavily.
You have the same argument in the US regarding for instance the Phelps family, yes its a minority arguement but it still exists.


So back to my point, you need to elaborate on an objective reasoning why you think the US civil liberties > EU civil liberties. Not just show your own personal bias for one of the systems. Otherwise someone with the reverse bias could equally well claim EU civil liberties > US civil liberties.
Otherwise it still just looks like nationalistic wanking but this time with substance.

[Temujin]

Someone asked what the european take was.

That would be me. Thanks, that's pretty informative.

[Samuel]

But I don't think it would be that controversial that hate speech laws, in at least Canada and the UK, would damn the poor, stupid, white racist, while being just fine with the Harvard intellectual and republishing such "work".

The law is always harshest on people unaware on how to manipulate it. Plus, if you write alot you learn what you need to say to get around the censors.

And of course apparently in France a Holocaust denier professor can be expelled by the State for not having good history; a purely politically motivated pretext, and I'm certain no one bothers noting that the State now claims for itself the Right to Decide What History Is, and punish you for non-conformity.

Given that they run the universitites, I'm almost positive that gives them the right to decide who they employ. As for Holocaust denial, it is a pretty good indication you suck at history. Heck, isn't the method of selecting textbooks deciding what the right history is as well?

Thus, that the Fifth Amendment extends the same rights to people who are innocent as it does to people who are guilty is wholly ancillary to the main point: the Fifth Amendment is, was, and has always been meant exclusively to protect the guilty.

That... that is really messed up. What is the justification for this? Or is this a case of "the law exists because the law exists"? Because that sounds like something that needs to be changed and badly. I can't see any reason for it at all.

If you are familiar with the argument then you should know that in europe this is seen as advancing civil liberties and not culling them. This because the liberty of the one on the receiving end of the hate/threat is considered worth more than the free speech liberty of the giving end. So its just a matter of subjective opinion which should weigh more heavily.

By restricting what you say we are increasing freedom! No, it is not increasing freedom, but safety, truth and comfort. Wheter or not it is a fair trade off is something that can be measured and discussed, but redefining the meaning of the word freedom is mildly newspeakish.

You have the same argument in the US regarding for instance the Phelps family, yes its a minority arguement but it still exists.

The Phelps family is a completely different problem. They cause emotional harm, but they do not advocate for violence against individuals.

So back to my point, you need to elaborate on an objective reasoning why you think the US civil liberties > EU civil liberties.

Does this need to be by country, by population, only the wealthy countries, etc? I mean Poland is the absolute bottom of the pile with laws against blasphemy- we don't have that in the US. There is the crime of "religious insult" in Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/03/08/t13.html

[Spoonist]

If you are familiar with the argument then you should know that in europe this is seen as advancing civil liberties and not culling them. This because the liberty of the one on the receiving end of the hate/threat is considered worth more than the free speech liberty of the giving end. So its just a matter of subjective opinion which should weigh more heavily.

By restricting what you say we are increasing freedom! No, it is not increasing freedom, but safety, truth and comfort. Wheter or not it is a fair trade off is something that can be measured and discussed, but redefining the meaning of the word freedom is mildly newspeakish.

so you are not familiar with the argument then. There is no redefining of the word. By limiting the freedom of speach with hate speech laws the argument claims that one is increasing the civil liberties of the minority. With that the freedom of the minority to do/be whatever that minority is. Like religion or sexual orientation or race etc. By advocating violence against the minority you are limiting the freedom of that minority, the argument goes.

I mean Poland is the absolute bottom of the pile with laws against blasphemy- we don't have that in the US. There is the crime of "religious insult" in Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.

There you go. Blasphemy laws as opposed to free speech. That's one that can be claimed to be objectively 'bad' for civil liberties. Unless one claims that the religious have a right not to be offended, but that would be fundamentalist thinking.

[Samuel]

one is increasing the civil liberties of the minority. With that the freedom of the minority to do/be whatever that minority is.

Except that isn't what hate speech does. Hate speech laws protect them from being targeted- that is safety, not freedom. It isn't like they can choose their ethnicity. Also technically civil liberties are protections from the state. This is protecting you from other citizens so it is just a normal law.

For make things clear, I'm in favor of certain hate speech laws, I just find the claims of increasing freedom BS. Why don't they just admit there are tradeoffs between certain freedoms and safety/security?

[Alyeska]

I don't like Hate Crimes laws. That said, I consider them to be a necessary evil. Contrary to what some Constitutional Scholars (Libertarians and Republicans) might say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The rights are not absolute. You don't believe me? Threaten to kill the President. The Secret Service doesn't give a rats ass about Freedom of Speech. Try and buy a nuclear bomb.

Hate Crimes laws are designed to deal with the imperfect world we live in. If there are problem behaviors leading to hateful crimes against minority groups, Hate Crimes laws can be useful tools to try and combat this behavior.

Like any law, it can can be a good law and it can be a bad law. It depends on how it was written and who was enforcing it. Do not attack Hate Crimes laws without considering all this. Work within the reality of the system to try and fix things. Do not bury your head in the sand, declare your hate for it and try and stop every hate crime law regardless of the actual facts.

[Aaron]

Just a note: Canada's hate crimes law doesn't just apply to minorities. If someone was going around promoting violence against whites, or christians it would apply the same.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The U.S. does not have perfectly free speech. However, it has a tolerable libertarian standard: incitement to immanent violent or dangerous action. Americans ought to be proud of our freedom of expression (though not because our wonderful demi-god Founding Fathers or the State in general 'granted' them to us, but because of mass struggle by Americans against the restraint of the State).

Reversing this precedent for some vaguely premised idea of political speech perhaps causing harm down the line is ridiculous. And this is the United States we're talking about, it would result in laws passed chilling speech and participation in even non-violent radical organizations, just as previous constraints did before.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I'm curious, how do the laws in Canada and Europe compare in regard to Miranda?

As mentioned by another, Commonwealth countries tend not to have rights enshrined in their constitutions. In the case of Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section under legal rights does not explicitly mention a right to remain silent.