Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
The so-called "Miranda rights" themselves, are spelled out in the Constitution, of course. Anyone accused in a criminal trial or proceeding, has the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and if he can't afford a lawyer one will be provided for him by the state; and all the rest. These are very valuable rights, and it's an excellent idea for the country to stick to them. And, being part of the Constitution, they are the Law of the Land... which is as it should be.
But where in the Constitution does it say that, when the cops arrest somebody, they must transform into schoolteachers and explain those rights to the suspect?
Being a citizen, carries certain responsibilities. and they are the citizen's responsibilities, not the cops'. Knowing what the basic laws are, is one of those responsibilities. God help you if you try to memorize the entire Federal Register every year, with its 60,000-plus pages of new laws. But it's up to you to know at least the basic stuff... such as what the Constitution protects.
If you walk into a bank, stick a gun in the teller's face, grab a bunch of cash, and run out... and a cop grabs you and arrests you... is he required to tell you that sticking a gun in the teller's face and grabbing the cash, is illegal? Is he required to warn you that if you slug the cop afterward, you will be in even more trouble? No. Those things are certainly true, but he is not required to tell you so. And if you slug him without being told it's illegal, and he slams you down onto the ground and cuffs you without explaining why, your case does NOT get thrown out of court for the lack of "Slug-a-cop" warnings.
So why does evidence get thrown out for the lack of "Right to remain silent" warnings?
If you ask for a lawyer and he refuses to get you one, and goes on questioning you, then that evidence most certainly should be thrown out, and if the cops lose the case, that's just too damned bad. That's as it should be.
But if he never mentions your right to have a lawyer, and asks you questions and you answer them, and then you ask for a lawyer and he stops questioning you and DOES get you a lawyer, where in the Constitution does it say that the evidence from those first questions must be thrown out?
The so-called "Miranda warnings" are a complete fabrication, and have no place in American jurispridence or police work. I know, the Supreme Court said they were mandatory, in the case by the same name. But the Supreme Court once said "separate but equal" segregated facilities for black people, were just fine, too. They were wrong both times.
You are responsible for knowing the basic law, and your fundamental rights. The cops are not responsible for becoming your schoolteacher - nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint that they are, despite what the Supreme Court once wishfully thought.
Your right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and all the rest, are one of the cornerstones of American freedon, protected by the Constitution, and must NEVER be compromised or infringed.
Your right to have cops explain that to you, is not, nor should it be.
But where in the Constitution does it say that, when the cops arrest somebody, they must transform into schoolteachers and explain those rights to the suspect?
Being a citizen, carries certain responsibilities. and they are the citizen's responsibilities, not the cops'. Knowing what the basic laws are, is one of those responsibilities. God help you if you try to memorize the entire Federal Register every year, with its 60,000-plus pages of new laws. But it's up to you to know at least the basic stuff... such as what the Constitution protects.
If you walk into a bank, stick a gun in the teller's face, grab a bunch of cash, and run out... and a cop grabs you and arrests you... is he required to tell you that sticking a gun in the teller's face and grabbing the cash, is illegal? Is he required to warn you that if you slug the cop afterward, you will be in even more trouble? No. Those things are certainly true, but he is not required to tell you so. And if you slug him without being told it's illegal, and he slams you down onto the ground and cuffs you without explaining why, your case does NOT get thrown out of court for the lack of "Slug-a-cop" warnings.
So why does evidence get thrown out for the lack of "Right to remain silent" warnings?
If you ask for a lawyer and he refuses to get you one, and goes on questioning you, then that evidence most certainly should be thrown out, and if the cops lose the case, that's just too damned bad. That's as it should be.
But if he never mentions your right to have a lawyer, and asks you questions and you answer them, and then you ask for a lawyer and he stops questioning you and DOES get you a lawyer, where in the Constitution does it say that the evidence from those first questions must be thrown out?
The so-called "Miranda warnings" are a complete fabrication, and have no place in American jurispridence or police work. I know, the Supreme Court said they were mandatory, in the case by the same name. But the Supreme Court once said "separate but equal" segregated facilities for black people, were just fine, too. They were wrong both times.
You are responsible for knowing the basic law, and your fundamental rights. The cops are not responsible for becoming your schoolteacher - nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint that they are, despite what the Supreme Court once wishfully thought.
Your right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and all the rest, are one of the cornerstones of American freedon, protected by the Constitution, and must NEVER be compromised or infringed.
Your right to have cops explain that to you, is not, nor should it be.
