bv2112: They should have read him his rights immediately. They did so for McVeigh. They did so for the Unabomber. Let's not forget that as despicable as this person is, he is an American citizen in American soil, and is thus afforded the full rights enjoyed by citizens. My understanding is that Miranda rights are fundamental and exist whether or not they are stated by police; since it is his fundamental right, anything he said prior to being read those rights can't be entered as evidence against him. I can see why the government would not read his rights immediately: they think they have a slam-dunk case with a preponderance of evidence and don't need a statement from the defendant to secure a conviction. I find two things troubling, however. First, in the interim between his apprehension and his being read his rights, was he induced to make statements without lawyers present and in unorthodox ways? Second, what is the rubric for the decision to not read Miranda rights to a U.S. citizen in U.S. soil? Is it because he was born abroad? These are dangerous precedents that I believe to be unconstitutional./not a lawyer, obviously.
LineNoise: Cythraul: vygramul: Cythraul: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'Government or any of its agents such as policemen.That's weird. I thought law enforcement officers were required to read miranda rights to arrested suspects.Nope, however if you don't anything the witness says\does after the arrest is more than likely going to be inadmissible. So its pretty standard practice in case the guy you arrest decides he is going to spill his guts to you in the cop car on the ride back to the station.However in this case, they have decided they already have all of the evidence they need, and were just hoping to get some intel out of him before a lawyer told him to shut up.
HideAndGoFarkYourself: A "preponderence of the evidence" is a good legal term....in civil court. It has no memaning in a criminal case.
natas6.0: meh, fark it.Our sensitive citizens would never stand for giving militant (whatever religion) killers the treatment that the geneva convention seems to call for
mattharvest: HideAndGoFarkYourself: A "preponderence of the evidence" is a good legal term....in civil court. It has no memaning in a criminal case.That's really, really false."Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction - i.e. the fact-finder has to agree that the elements of the crime were shown beyond a reasonable doubt - but that's not the standard for questions of excluding evidence, etc.In fact, the ACTUAL standard for whether or not Miranda rights have been waived is - wait for it - preponderance of evidence. In other words, the Judge (who makes the decision since it is a legal one, not a factual one) reviews the evidence of waiver and establishes whether by the preponderance of evidence the defendant waived his rights under Miranda. See, e.g. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618If you don't know the law (and you clearly don't), why are you commenting as if you do?
If you like these links, you'll love
More Fark for your buck
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 11 2017 20:00:16
Runtime: 0.459 sec (459 ms)