Art Vandelay said:
No, of course not. The point is not that this particular case could have been resolved without a slippery slope, but that any policy which seeks to eliminate "technicalities" will necessarily lead to a slippery slope.
That is exactly the argument I was talking about.
What the are you talking about? You don't know what it means or that is not Miranda?
Oh, please! Don't be ridiculous. If only statements from people who understand Miranda could be used in court, every single confession would be suppressed. Not even the USSC can agree what it means.
Got it now. This is silly. It is not Miranda in general that is the problem. SCOTUS agrees what Miranda means. They just disagree as to its application in extreme instance. SCOTUS must balance the needs of society with the needs of the accused. It is here that the controversy comes in. It is simply wrong to say that SCOTUS can't agree to what it means.
You just finished telling me that even cops, who are presumably quite knowledgeable about Miranda, aren't sure what is permissible and what isn't, and now you claim that "It's not all that complicated"?
Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else? I never said this.
Look, the officers clearly understood Miranda. The very moment that they realized that this individual could be a defendant they stopped the interview. The stopped the interview
because the did understand Miranda. The problem was NOT on the part of the police. They problem was that someone who was not a defendant offered to provide information. The police are busy and often times they ask witnesses to come in to the station to provide that information. This was just one of those quirks. If they had gone to him instead you and I would be discussing a different case.
Do you understand that if they had met him outside he would not have had grounds for a dismissal?
I said that it isn't necessarily the same as getting away with it. By that, I mean that the fact that his conviction was overturned in and of itself does not mean that he got away with it.
A distinction without a difference. Just a way to mollify your conscience. If it makes you feel better to say he didn't get away with it then fine. A little girl was kidnapped, sexually assaulted, murdered and the man who committed the crime, was convicted and then his conviction was overturned. In other words, he got away with it.
I seriously doubt he served no time in jail.
Big deal, I'm sure that helps her family feel good. I really don't get the point of the fact he did jail time. So what? He kidnapped, raped and murdered a little girl. Her family will never see her again. She was all alone and suffered horribly before she died. What does a few months in prison have to do with that? I would not hang my hat on the fact that this guy did time. It offers no solace to anyone.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the charges were dismissed with prejudice.
So what? There is no evidence to try him on. What is the difference? You seem to hang your hat on these distinctions that serve no practical difference.
Isn't that rather circular?
Not at all.
"This is a technicality!"
"And what is the definition of a technicality?"
"This is the very definition of a technicality!"
You are playing word games.
This case is a good example of a technicality. There is nothing at all circular about it.
Well, then, hopefully they won't ever get arrested separately.
These are just kids. And they know their Miranda rights. None of them could be questioned outside of my presence. If kids pretty much know their Miranda rights what is the likely hood that an adult doesn't?
I find this whole discussion rather bizarre. I am for the constitution and I am for defendants rights. I have said I support Miranda. However the world isn't so black and white. Miranda isn't perfect and victims of crimes have rights also. I would much rather have Miranda than not but I am not so brain dead as to assume that it (Miranda) doesn't let people get away with murder based on technicalities. Arrests that are made in good faith are overturned on whether an individual was interviewed inside or outside of a building. I'm just pointing out the tragedy of that fact while I support Miranda.
If you can't see that then there is not much more to say. What is it that you want from this exchange? I have told you my honest opinion and it is based on an honest viewing of the facts.
You said I called the constitution a technicality. It is demonstrable that I have done no such thing. So what is the purpose of the discussion? What do you want from me? Whether or not the earth is flat is not arguable. It is empirical. Whether or not this guy got off on a technicality is not empirical it is a matter of argument. Do you see the difference?
Keep in mind that reasonable people can disagree.
So it's merely theoretical?
.