|
Tri High
Whigro


Registered: 05/02/08
Posts: 11,769
Loc: Monaghan, Ireland
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
"Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent"
#12666413 - 06/01/10 12:32 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 1, 10:59 am ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."
A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough. "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."
"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."
Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.
The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."
He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.
The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.
The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_suprem...a_rights/print
-------------------- you just need money to get laid - starfire_xes
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: Tri High]
#12667244 - 06/01/10 03:26 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Imagine the inconvenience. The horror!
I'm sure public flogging is right around the corner.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
DankDee
Stranger
Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 39
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#12667765 - 06/01/10 05:11 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
are you in favor or the ruling? If so why?
"suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so"
Its not the end of rights as we know it but why is this ruling a good thing? In other words: Why is it good to assume a person's rights waived even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to waive those rights?
It just seems like a stupid semantics ruling that only hurts rather than helps (although probably just barely will hurt). Im sure it will not effect most but I mean it just seems like a pointless annoying ruling that gives police more (very little more) power for no real reason.
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: DankDee]
#12668510 - 06/01/10 07:18 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DankDee said: . Im sure it will not effect most but I mean it just seems like a pointless annoying ruling that gives police more (very little more) power for no real reason.
That's the way I see it as well, but we've already given cops too much power, thanks to the WoD. But I also think that we don't need to be giving them anymore, even if it's a small amount.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: Le_Canard]
#12669462 - 06/01/10 10:04 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
> are you in favor or the ruling? If so why?
I agree with the ruling because it removes the ambiguity that existed in the past. Nothing has changed, other than the rules are the same everywhere now. In the past it was up to the cop, the city, the county, or the state to decide what was implied when a suspect didn't say anything. Now, there is no question. If you ever get arrested, the first and only thing you should ever say is, "Based upon my fifth amendment rights protecting me against self-incrimination, I must humbly decline to answer any questions until I have spoken with legal council."
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: Seuss]
#12671054 - 06/02/10 07:32 AM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > are you in favor or the ruling? If so why?
I agree with the ruling because it removes the ambiguity that existed in the past. Nothing has changed, other than the rules are the same everywhere now.
Exactly.
Quote:
In the past it was up to the cop, the city, the county, or the state to decide what was implied when a suspect didn't say anything. Now, there is no question.
Exactly.
Quote:
If you ever get arrested, the first and only thing you should ever say is, "Based upon my fifth amendment rights protecting me against self-incrimination, I must humbly decline to answer any questions until I have spoken with legal council."
Excellent advice. If there are those who don't know their rights by now they deserve whatever happens to them
Stupid is as stupid does.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
NizzyJones
Fight evil with funk



Registered: 08/22/06
Posts: 2,082
Loc: Somewhere North of Normal
Last seen: 2 years, 12 days
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#12677631 - 06/03/10 09:38 AM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Indeed. In fact even if you're among those who disagree with the premise of the ruling it's clear that this defendant deserved to loose his appeal since his idea of "remaining silent" included answering some of their questions.
-------------------- Wildflower seed on the sand and stone, may the four winds blow you safely home Curriculum vapidum (dry herb vapes)
|
Anonymous #1
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: Tri High]
#12677838 - 06/03/10 10:26 AM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Most people don't know their rights, and the police know this.
Fuck these conservative douche bags on the Supreme Court now. First they sell out the government to corporations, now this. Next they'll be banning abortions and taking us back to the Dark Ages with regular book burnings.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: Anonymous #1]
#12678311 - 06/03/10 12:09 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Oh come on, this is a foolish ruling that means nothing.
All they're really saying is that if you sit there answering some of their questions, without asking for a lawyer, they can continue to question you.
The guy in this case plainly didn't invoke his right to remain silent since he sat there occasionally answering questions and nodding or shaking his head to them. You can't answer questions and make statements, then claim you were invoking your right to remain silent.
All they're saying is that you can't retroactively invoke your right to remain silent. If you don't invoke the right it only makes sense that cops can continue to question you.
You're not losing any rights... if you can't bring yourself to say "I wish to remain silent", you can still just shut your mouth. They can't compel you to speak. But if you won't tell them you're remaining silent there's no reason they shouldn't continue to question you.
-FF
-------------------- It drinks the alcohol and abstains from the weed or else it gets the hose again. -Chemy The difference between the substances doesn't matter. This is a war on consciousness, on our right to the very essence of what we are. With no control over that, we have no need to speak of freedom or a free society. -fireseed "If we are going to have a war on marijuana, the least we can do is pull the sick and the dying off the battlefield." -Neal Levine (MPP) I find the whole "my drug should be legal but yours should be illegal" mindset disgusting and hypocritical. It's what George Bush and company do when they drink a cocktail and debate the best way to imprison marijuana users. -Diploid
|
numonkei
Back! From thedigestive tractof dave theiguana!


Registered: 04/12/06
Posts: 2,500
Loc: A Tree
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#12680586 - 06/03/10 07:11 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms Said
Excellent advice. If there are those who don't know their rights by now they deserve whatever happens to them
Stupid is as stupid does.
Right. Kids don't hear this in civics courses. And for those who DON'T know their rights, or assume they don't mean much due to having seen sensationalized stories and had little court experience, will fuck them. They're young, and they'll learn.
This is foolish. You DON'T know your rights. They have just changed with this ruling whether or not you knew about them, or if they became more clear and did NOT change they simply stopped being silent and were further articulated.
And to Seuss' remark, silence denotes silence. Breaking that later is irrelevant, but silence at the time is remaining silent. Giving up that right in twelve seconds is no different than giving that right up twelve days later. However, until the man spoke his silence SHOULD be considered what it was. And the right to remain silent does not mean one must articulate their right, it means one has the right to 'remain' silent.
The right to 'remain' silent should not proceed an admission of such a right, as one has broken their silence at this point to retain their right to 'remain' silent.
There are no rights lost, but the semantics here are ridiculous, and the Supreme Court spending it's time on semantics is a disgrace to a supposedly elucidating system of law. If you don't have a right to 'remain' silent, then that assumes you already spoke. If you have not spoken, why must one 'remain' silent?
~Monk
|
NizzyJones
Fight evil with funk



Registered: 08/22/06
Posts: 2,082
Loc: Somewhere North of Normal
Last seen: 2 years, 12 days
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: numonkei]
#12681192 - 06/03/10 08:45 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If you don't say anything you've asserted your right to remain silent... but only until you say something.
That's all this is. Police haven't been given the right to beat the shit out of you until you say "I'm exercising my right to remain silent!", they just don't have to stop asking questions until you unambiguously indicate that you're exercising that right.
It's a complete non-issue.
-------------------- Wildflower seed on the sand and stone, may the four winds blow you safely home Curriculum vapidum (dry herb vapes)
|
Anonymous #1
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: If there are those who don't know their rights by now they deserve whatever happens to them
Wow, you've got to be kidding me.. 
Ask the average poor black man about his so-called "rights" and he'll laugh in your face. Are you seriously that much of a drug war/police sympathizer to actually approve of people being arrested for victimless crimes?
Edited by Anonymous (06/03/10 09:24 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: NizzyJones]
#12682907 - 06/04/10 03:16 AM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NizzyJones said: It's a complete non-issue.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said: If there are those who don't know their rights by now they deserve whatever happens to them
Wow, you've got to be kidding me.. 
Ask the average poor black man about his so-called "rights" and he'll laugh in your face. Are you seriously that much of a drug war/police sympathizer to actually approve of people being arrested for victimless crimes?
Are you so incapable of coherent thought that you equate believing most people are intelligent enough to know their rights to being "pro drug war"?
Wow, you've got to be kidding me.. 
Please do the world a favor. Don't reproduce.
As an aside..... What type of ball-less wonder needs to post a comment like that as Anonymous?
What type of ball-less wonder needs to inject race into a non-racial issue?
I weep for you.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: numonkei]
#12682986 - 06/04/10 04:16 AM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
numonkei said: This is foolish. You DON'T know your rights. They have just changed with this ruling whether or not you knew about them, or if they became more clear and did NOT change they simply stopped being silent and were further articulated.
I don't think you read the decision very well. Nothing has changed. This was not setting a new precedent it was just a simple interpretation ruling on the 5th amendment.
Americans never have and never will have the automatic right to not be questioned just because you don't answer the first few questions they ask. The fact that you think this ruling is even worth discussing just shows how little you actually know about your rights.
There is no right to not be questioned by the police. You have a right to remain silent and a right to have a lawyer present during questioning. Once you request a lawyer they have to stop questioning you until your lawyer arrives. Usually this is the end of the questioning because any lawyer worth his salt will tell his client to say NOTHING.
The only reason they have to stop questioning you if you invoke your right to remain silent is because once you make it clear that you're remaining silent it would amount to psychological torture to question a silent man for hours on end.
Quote:
And to Seuss' remark, silence denotes silence. Breaking that later is irrelevant, but silence at the time is remaining silent.
You actually have to remain silent in order to exercise that right. If you say "I am exercising my right to remain silent!" and then jabber like an idiot for the next hour it means nothing.
Perhaps you forget the next line in the Miranda warning... "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." You apparently seem to forget that part. Seems pretty clear to me.
> However, until the man spoke his silence SHOULD be considered what it was.
There's really no other way to consider silence. WTF are you talking about?
> And the right to remain silent does not mean one must articulate their right, it means one has the right to 'remain' silent.
You don't have to articulate anything, you just have to not speak or signal answers to questions!
> If you have not spoken, why must one 'remain' silent?
Because once you speak you are no longer silent. I'm guessing english is not your native language.
-FF
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 19 hours
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: DankDee]
#12692411 - 06/05/10 03:57 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DankDee said: are you in favor or the ruling? If so why?
I agree with the ruling because he didn't remain silent. He ended up talking. You can't confess and then later say that actually you didn't mean to confess.
Unless you say that you are remaining silent. That actually gives you a lot of power.
You should always say that you are remaining silent the moment they click the handcuffs on you. You can try to talk your way out of it before then, but after that happens its always best to let them know that you are going to be silent.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: luvdemshrooms] 1
#12747811 - 06/15/10 04:24 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think it's stupid that we have to declare that we are using our right to remain silent; it should be implied, like all of our other rights.
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
If you ever get arrested, the first and only thing you should ever say is, "Based upon my fifth amendment rights protecting me against self-incrimination, I must humbly decline to answer any questions until I have spoken with legal council."
Excellent advice. If there are those who don't know their rights by now they deserve whatever happens to them
Stupid is as stupid does.
You live in some fantasy world--in reality, if someone were to actually say that to a cop, the cop would immediately assume that you're guilty and take the fact that you don't want to talk to him/her offensively.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
NizzyJones
Fight evil with funk



Registered: 08/22/06
Posts: 2,082
Loc: Somewhere North of Normal
Last seen: 2 years, 12 days
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: Poid]
#12749379 - 06/15/10 09:00 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If they're arresting you they already think you're guilty.
And it's not like this is a magical spell that needs to be repeated verbatim, any indication that you want a lawyer or intend to remain silent is fine.
-------------------- Wildflower seed on the sand and stone, may the four winds blow you safely home Curriculum vapidum (dry herb vapes)
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: NizzyJones]
#12749556 - 06/15/10 09:30 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NizzyJones said: If they're arresting you they already think you're guilty.
And asking to remain silent is basically self-incrimination.
Quote:
NizzyJones said: And it's not like this is a magical spell that needs to be repeated verbatim, any indication that you want a lawyer or intend to remain silent is fine.
From what I understand, you have to vocally express that you wish to use your right to remain silent.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
ChronicCluster
Lord Cephalopod is Reborn!




Registered: 04/28/10
Posts: 1,348
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: "Suspects must now explicitly state they wish to remain silent" [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#12749730 - 06/15/10 09:59 PM (13 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > are you in favor or the ruling? If so why?
I agree with the ruling because it removes the ambiguity that existed in the past. Nothing has changed, other than the rules are the same everywhere now.
Exactly.
Quote:
In the past it was up to the cop, the city, the county, or the state to decide what was implied when a suspect didn't say anything. Now, there is no question.
Exactly.
Quote:
If you ever get arrested, the first and only thing you should ever say is, "Based upon my fifth amendment rights protecting me against self-incrimination, I must humbly decline to answer any questions until I have spoken with legal council."
Excellent advice. If there are those who don't know their rights by now they deserve whatever happens to them
Stupid is as stupid does.
You are confusing stupidity and ignorance. Which quite ironically makes you ignorant. Which is what you are saying others should be locked up for. Great job shooting yourself in the foot!
-------------------- This site needs some submissions. You should probably help out... NawMean?
|
|