Flag-burning amendment

[RandFan]

Here's the solution taken right out of the Neocon Handbook:

Segregated Flag-burning Zones

Yeah, I mean it works so well for anti-Bush demonstrators.

I like it. How about pot smoking zones?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Oh yeah? Well how about Gay Marriage Reservations?

 

[Art Vandelay]

QUOTE]Originally posted by RandFan
They are the Miranda rights. It is not necessary for defendants to know the case. They just need to know their rights.[/quote]
I don't know what you're trying to say here. You gave six statements as being "Miranda rights". None of these statements were true statements, according to the Supreme Court. It seems to me that I was accurate it supposing that you do not know what your Miranda rights are.

This is wrong. Please see above.

Okay, so what you're saying is that they were fully aware of the risks of such questioning, and took a calculated risk? They were so sure that this wasn't the guy that didn't bother taking reasonable precautions? And what about the judge? Why did he allow it? And why did the CA Supreme Court agree?

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. But there is no reason for anyone else to agree.

Yes, if you wish to insist that "simple" is an appropriate description for something that takes several appeals, the ruling of the USSC, and over a decade of legal process to decide, I can't stop you.

It was not a misunderstanding about Miranda. It was a misunderstanding of the state of the individual being interviewed.

Appeal courts don't decide issue of facts, they decide issues of law. The state of the individual could not have been an issue.

It was allowed because it clearly did not violate the spirit of Miranda.

I disagree.

You are the one mentioning the fact that this guy did time. So what? I'm countering the importance of that.

YOU brought it up, so why are you now countering the importance of it?

He DID go free. What about that do you not get?

I never said he didn't go free. I said "Having a conviction overturned is not the same as going free..." What do YOU not understand about THAT? Maybe he did go free. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is that you have presented any evidence that this is so.

I did not make an argument. I made a point. Nothing circular about that.

Well, even if I did misunderstand what you were doing, that doesn't make it a "word game". And after splitting hairs over "argument" and "point", your complaints of my "distinction with no practical difference" ring hollow.

Definitions help us understand meaning. Examples also help us understand meaning.

That doesn't mean they're the same.

I did not say the case wasn't empirical.

Art, this is not an empirical case.

 

[RandFan]

I don't know what you're trying to say here. You gave six statements as being "Miranda rights". None of these statements were true statements, according to the Supreme Court. It seems to me that I was accurate it supposing that you do not know what your Miranda rights are.

What are you talking about? What do you mean they are not true statements according to the supreme court?

You are making a claim, can you back it up instead of just gainsaying?

Okay, so what you're saying is that they were fully aware of the risks of such questioning, and took a calculated risk?

Not quite. Law enforcement take these kinds of "risks" every single day. It is called law enforcement. And Miranda ties their hands when it comes to interviewing individuals who are not considered suspects. Law enforcement must choose between getting the information and being efficient and taking the risk. Miranda does not care about "good faith". The Courts all agree that it was in good faith. SCOTUS simply decided that it would give Law Enforcement increased power because Law Enforcement could simply list everyone as witnesses. I understand the reason. My point has always been that THIS case was reversed on a technicality to protect the whole process.

They were so sure that this wasn't the guy that didn't bother taking reasonable precautions?

This is a bit misleading. It is a mater of course for law enforcement not to read every witness their rights since the vast majority of witnesses are not suspects and reading everyone their rights would reduce convictions unnecessarily from a statistical view point.

And what about the judge? Why did he allow it?

I have already answered your question many times. The actions of the police did not violate the spirit of Miranda. They only violated what was in this case a technical requirement.

And why did the CA Supreme Court agree?

The appellate courts and the State Supreme Courts both agreed that the case did not violate the spirit of the law and only a technical requirement of Miranda (as it applies in this case). Which is important but wasn't really material in this case since the information was given voluntarily.

Yes, if you wish to insist that "simple" is an appropriate description for something that takes several appeals, the ruling of the USSC, and over a decade of legal process to decide, I can't stop you.

This whole thing was amazingly simple. SCOTUS simply felt that the technicality was more important than the spirit of Miranda. And BTW, the wheels of justice move slowly. You argument that this took along time is fallacious.

Appeal courts don't decide issue of facts, they decide issues of law. The state of the individual could not have been an issue.

I hate to be rude but this is a demonstrably stupid argument.

The state of the individual is material to the ruling. Courts base law on the state of individuals all of the time.

Was the defendant drunk?
Was the defendant competent to stand trial?
Was the defendant sane at the time of the crime?
Was the defendant represented by an attorney?
Was the defendant in the police station at the time of the interview?

All of these are states of the individual and are crucial. The last one is the one pertinent to this case.

I never said he didn't go free. I said "Having a conviction overturned is not the same as going free..."

In this case it WAS the same. What don't you get about THAT!

Maybe he did go free. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is that you have presented any evidence that this is so.

His conviction was overturned and there was insufficient evidence to retry him. What do I have to do? I posted the link.

Well, even if I did misunderstand what you were doing, that doesn't make it a "word game".

Yes it does. You take an opinion and turn it into a circular argument putting words in my mouth.

And after splitting hairs over "argument" and "point", your complaints of my "distinction with no practical difference" ring hollow.

I can't possibly see how?

I did not say the case wasn't empirical.

Art, this is not an empirical case.

I misspoke, I apologize. I think however my meaning was clear. I was talking about the notion of the interpretation or application of the law in this case. If it was empirical it is unlikely that the Judge, Appeals Court, State Supreme Court would all disagree with SCOTUS. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Tmy]

I always thought the right to an education is found in the state constitutions.

 

[RandFan]

Oh yeah? Well how about Gay Marriage Reservations?

I think reservations are very important. It's also a good idea to check your reservations before the imprtant date. This would include the church, restaurant, hotel, etc. Just showing up is likely to ruin everything.

Good point.

 

[shanek]

I always thought the right to an education is found in the state constitutions.

Article IX of the NC Constitution covers this:

http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/stgovt/article_vii-xiv.HTM#IX

Read it carefully; especially the opening words, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." If that doesn't scare you, what will?

Of course, we're also talking about a document that uses the phrase, "the financial support of the free public schools," so you can judge for yourself how seriously you want to take the people who wrote it...

 

[Art Vandelay]

You are making a claim, can you back it up instead of just gainsaying?

Your own case shows that "anything you can say can be used in court" is false. And "you have the right to remain silent" is also false.

Miranda does not care about "good faith".

A more accurate statements would be "good faith is not cure-all". Good faith is taken into consideration.

This whole thing was amazingly simple. SCOTUS simply felt that the technicality was more important than the spirit of Miranda. And BTW, the wheels of justice move slowly. You argument that this took along time is fallacious.

First of all, if they did not violate the spirit of Miranda, then they did not violate Miranda. Miranda is nothing but spirit; there is no “letter” of Miranda. Miranda is the judicial determination of what the spirit of the Constitution is. The idea of a “technical requirement” doesn’t make sense; the USSC is free to declare the meaning of Miranda to be whatever they want it to be; if they say it requires something, it’s because they want it to mean that, not that they are forced to say it means that for the sake of some “technical” requirement. Where would such a requirement come from?

And even if I were to accept your explanation, it would completely irrelevant to the question of whether it is simple. It would still leave the question of why the CSSC was unable to come to the “correct” decision as to whether the “letter” or the “spirit” is more important. If it were truly simple, two bodies of such expertise would not disagree so fundamentally.

Finally, simple things do tend to take less time than complicated ones.

All of these are states of the individual and are crucial. The last one is the one pertinent to this case.

Pertinent, yes. In dispute, no. That’s what I meant by being an issue.

In this case it WAS the same. What don't you get about THAT!

Logical equivalence is a global property; it is meaningless to say that “in this case it was the same”. Either it’s always the same, or it’s not always the same. Even if two propositions are simultaneously true, that hardly makes them the same. They are not same. Period. Your responses show that you simply don’t comprehend this fact. Furthermore, you presented the fact that the conviction was overturned as evidence for the fact that he went free, and you present the fact that he went free as support for the idea that they are same. More circularity, whether it’s a point or an argument.

His conviction was overturned and there was insufficient evidence to retry him. What do I have to do? I posted the link.

How about providing a quote saying that there was insufficient evidence to retry him?

Yes it does. You take an opinion and turn it into a circular argument putting words in my mouth.

I did not put words in your mouth; my summary was accurate. I also did not claim that you made a circular argument; you added the word “argument”, then disputed it. Looks like you’re the one putting words in others’ mouths. Finally, I did not make it circular, it was that way when I found it.

I can't possibly see how?

Whether it was an argument or a point is irrelevant to whether it’s circular.

Also, you said “This individual who was thought to be a witness offered to provide information. This individual offered to come into the station.” That’s not quite accurate. According to the decision, four police officers came to his home and asked him to come down to the station and answer some questions. He did not “offer”.

You said “The very moment that they realized that this individual could be a defendant they stopped the interview.”
According the decision, “Stansbury told the officers [that he] left the trailer at about midnight in his housemate's turquoise, American-made car. This last detail aroused Johnston's suspicions[…] When Stansbury, in response to a further question, admitted to prior convictions for rape, kidnaping and child molestation, Johnston terminated the interview and another officer advised Stansbury of his Miranda rights.”
So his suspicions were aroused, yet he continued to ask questions (presumably about his criminal history). Sounds to me that he realized that Stansbury could be a defendant before Mirandizing.

 

[crimresearch]

Uhhmm..Hiibell wasn't a Miranda case...the neccesary 2 elements that trigger Miranda were not present.

And it isn't an automatic presumeption that questioning someone at a police station triggers Miranda either. It almost always is *treated* that way, but just walking through the door isn't enough.

And the recent trend to have police bandaid Miranda on after the fact got shot down too.

 

[RandFan]

Your own case shows that "anything you can say can be used in court" is false. And "you have the right to remain silent" is also false.

This is simply nonsense. Where did you get this notion? By your logic;

1.) Nothing you say can be used against you.

2.) You don't have the right to remain silent.

Could you clarify? And not just post a link that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

A more accurate statements would be "good faith is not cure-all". Good faith is taken into consideration.

I never claimed that it was. I believe that it should be considered. It doesn't appear to be taken into account in this case.

...they did not violate Miranda.

Did they violate section 3501?

Miranda is nothing but spirit; there is no “letter” of Miranda.

I'm reasonably certain that this is wrong. Either I have a serious miss-understanding of the history of Miranda and Section 3501 which was passed as a direct result of Miranda or you do. You have not made a clear or compelling case so I must continue to assume that I am right based on the evidence at hand including;

Here:

U.S. Gov Info / Resources

After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave.

Please note the following.

• "must inform"
  
• "in which they do not believe they are free to leave."

Miranda is the judicial determination of what the spirit of the Constitution is.

Miranda set precident beyond that congress passed Section 3501. Admissibility of confessions. This would seem to me to codify specifics of Miranda rights.

Please don't simply gainsay or deny that 3501 does set specific rules of conduct regarding the reading of rights. No, it is not called Miranda but was passed as a direct result of the Supreme Court's ruling which encouraged congress to take up the issue (see link).

The idea of a “technical requirement” doesn’t make sense...

It makes very good sense. The Supreme Court did not equivocate about Miranda. It expresely stated that a person must be read his rights when in custody.

...the USSC is free to declare the meaning of Miranda to be whatever they want it to be...

And having declared that "in custody" includes anyone in a police station they have set precedent and that.

...if they say it requires something, it’s because they want it to mean that, not that they are forced to say it means that for the sake of some “technical” requirement. Where would such a requirement come from?

It is the decision that has become law. The have set the law and have now ruled that it must be construed narrowly.

And even if I were to accept your explanation, it would completely irrelevant to the question of whether it is simple.

You simply state taht it is irrelevant without stating why. Your statement seems rather presumptious in light of the facts of the case.

It would still leave the question of why the CSSC was unable to come to the “correct” decision as to whether the “letter” or the “spirit” is more important. If it were truly simple, two bodies of such expertise would not disagree so fundamentally.

Your argument is fallacious. The issue is simple. The case is simply about balancing the needs of law enforcement, society and victims with the rights of the accused. The State Supreme Court viewed it differently than SCOTUS but not because it was complex. They simply held a different view.

The notion that two different decisions from educated bodies would prove complexity is FALLACIOUS.

Finally, simple things do tend to take less time than complicated ones.

This is another fallacious argument. That something takes a long time does NOT prove that it is complex.

I do not have the proof that the individual was never retried or that there was insufficient evidence. That was my understanding from a documentary on the case. I assumed that the evidence was there. I apologize for advancing it without the evidence.

If he wasn't retried then would you admit that he "got away with it"?

I did not put words in your mouth; my summary was accurate.

I'll concede that you are correct.

 

[RandFan]

Art,

This all started because you accused me of calling the Constitution a "technicality" when I clearly did no such thing. I was discussing the frustration of the police when a defendant gets off on a technicality.

Could you please read the following link,

Take Technicality Out of Miranda Paul G. Cassell is a professor at the University of Utah College of Law

While the Supreme Court is not confronted with the question of whether to end Miranda warnings, the issue before it is nonetheless of exceptional importance. Until the Virginia ruling, any deviation from the Miranda requirements led to the suppression of voluntary confessions, no matter how innocent the police mistake or how close the question of whether a mistake even was made. Despite police officers’ best efforts, numerous cases turn on technical issues about whether they properly followed all the Miranda requirements. And even more often, police officers are not able to question suspected criminals because of Miranda’s little-known procedural requirements. In a recent study published in the Stanford Law Review, economist Richard Fowles and I estimated that as many as 136,000 violent crimes and 299,000 property crimes go unsolved each year because of the Miranda procedures.

My point is simple. When the police make an innocent mistake and this results in a conviction being overturned or a confession being tossed out then that decision constitutes a "technicality".

 

[shanek]

Uhhmm..Hiibell wasn't a Miranda case...the neccesary 2 elements that trigger Miranda were not present.

So, then suspected criminals have more rights than people who aren't suspected of any wrongdoing?

This is CRAP. Miranda DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS. The Constitution DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS. You don't suddenly have the right to remain silent once you're arrested; you always had that right. Miranda only came about so that police would be forced to inform suspects of their rights upon arrest; that doesn't mean they're suddenly given something that doesn't belong to the rest of us.

 

[RandFan]

So, then suspected criminals have more rights than people who aren't suspected of any wrongdoing?

This is CRAP. Miranda DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS. The Constitution DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS. You don't suddenly have the right to remain silent once you're arrested; you always had that right. Miranda only came about so that police would be forced to inform suspects of their rights upon arrest; that doesn't mean they're suddenly given something that doesn't belong to the rest of us.

Thanks shane,

I'm not certain but I think this might be along the lines that Art is trying to express. However it should be noted that the right without miranda is somewhat abstract. Miranda and more importantly 3501 make the right practical and enures to some level of degree that suspects are informed of their rights.

 

[crimresearch]

Randfan, the section of US code that you reference is the way federal courts do business, it is not a law that applies to local police policies..they may have similar mandates, but they are not 'bound' by 3501.

The Exclusionary Rule, which seems to be what you and whatshisbutt are arguing over, is the means for ensuring that police honor Miranda, and is one of the prime examples of what people often call a 'technicality'.