I've definitely lived in the South too long because I don't see what's so remarkable about that ad.

Davis lost. Griffith lost. Awesome ad guy lost.

i used to believe that israel was usually in the right. I dont remember the last time i thought that. Defending their illegal blockade in international waters has proven the straw that has broken my back and backing

pacino wrote:Shouldn't you know your rights (and subsequently waive them w/o saying so) without the pesky government having to tell you? the supreme court thinks so!

I don't see this as a really big deal. The defendent was informed of his rights, stayed quiet for a time -- strongly suggesting he understood that he didn't have to talk, and then voluntarily answered a question. I don't think there is a strong case that the defendent was ignorant of his rights.

wait so I have to say that I retain my right to remain silent? Why I can't I just remain silent?

allentown wrote:

pacino wrote:Shouldn't you know your rights (and subsequently waive them w/o saying so) without the pesky government having to tell you? the supreme court thinks so!

I don't see this as a really big deal. The defendent was informed of his rights, stayed quiet for a time -- strongly suggesting he understood that he didn't have to talk, and then voluntarily answered a question. I don't think there is a strong case that the defendent was ignorant of his rights.

the implication being that the police would pepper him with questions until he finally felt the need to talk. HE DIDNT SIGN A FORM, he just said it! Oh boy. What a fine, fine distinction.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:wait so I have to say that I retain my right to remain silent? Why I can't I just remain silent?

You can.

Apparently now if a suspect, informed of his right to remain silent and having acknowledged he understands the right, does not invoke explicitly, he is not judged to have invoked his right to remain silent if he just sits there not answering questions for a while. So if you get questioned for an hour or day saying nothing, then start speaking, it is admissible in court.

Or at least that's how I'm reading that article.

/not a lawyer
//really surprised, if I'm reading that right, that four people voted against that decision

pacino wrote:

allentown wrote:

pacino wrote:Shouldn't you know your rights (and subsequently waive them w/o saying so) without the pesky government having to tell you? the supreme court thinks so!

I don't see this as a really big deal. The defendent was informed of his rights, stayed quiet for a time -- strongly suggesting he understood that he didn't have to talk, and then voluntarily answered a question. I don't think there is a strong case that the defendent was ignorant of his rights.

the implication being that the police would pepper him with questions until he finally felt the need to talk. HE DIDNT SIGN A FORM, he just said it! Oh boy. What a fine, fine distinction.

Um, no?

It would appear that one must specifically say 'i wish to remain silent' now, and it's not assumed that merely remaining silent is remaining silent. They do not have to ask if you've indeed waived your rights, they can state the rights.

pacino wrote:It would appear that one must specifically say 'i wish to remain silent' now, and it's not assumed that merely remaining silent is remaining silent. They do not have to ask if you've indeed waived your rights, they can state the rights.

If you remain silent though you don't get into trouble. And if you invoke your right to remain silent explicitly you're OK. You run into trouble by not talking for a while, but not saying you want to invoke your right to remain silent, then admitting to murder. What's wrong with that, exactly?

it moves the burden of the knowledge of the procedure from the government official trained in the matter to the citizen who may be a dope. dopes have rights, too.

So they're informed they have the right to remain silent, they acknowledge they understand they have the right to remain silent, they don't talk for a while, then admit to something important after sustained questioning.

How long would they need to be silent before you would like for them to have implicitly invoked the right to remain silent?

perhaps less than three hours

Even if you're a dope though you should be able to follow the pretty simple advice that it's never in your interest to talk to the cops. Never. (isn't that right, Phight?)

LOOK IF YOU DON'T SIGN THE FORM ITS NOT OKAY THERE MUST BE FORMS

A police detective read Thompkins his rights, including the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer. Thompkins said he understood, but did not sign a form.

So he acknowledged he understood (and thus aware of) his rights against self-incrimination, that "anything he says can be used against him in court". Interrogations are usually recorded nowadays, so the Mirandizing and his acknowldgement would be on record. The only arguement would be that he didn't really understand his rights (be it language barrier, mental deficiency, whatever) even though he acknowledged so, in which case a signed form would be meaningless anyway.

For about two hours and 45 minutes, Thompkins said almost nothing in response to questions. The detective asked Thompkins if he believed in God and then asked: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"

Slick.

The one word he should've said was "lawyer".

"Yes," Thompkins said, and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or to speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply.

While admission carries a lot of weight, there had to be other evidence, witness testimony, etc. No way in hades do they prosecute based solely on that, considering any lawyer could argue the ambiguity of the question (tired, confused, etc.).

VoxOrion wrote:LOOK IF YOU DON'T SIGN THE FORM ITS NOT OKAY THERE MUST BE FORMS

In triplicate. And notarized... in triplicate.

NYT hiring Nate Silver/subsuming 538's coverage onto their politics site. Smart move by the Times. Hope this doesn't change things much for Nate's work output.

jerseyhoya wrote:So they're informed they have the right to remain silent, they acknowledge they understand they have the right to remain silent, they don't talk for a while, then admit to something important after sustained questioning.

How long would they need to be silent before you would like for them to have implicitly invoked the right to remain silent?

Previously, cops had to prove that a person waived their rights, usually be having them sign a waiver. Now, it's not necessary to prove that a suspect waived their rights in writing. So intense interrogation can begin immediately after the reading of the Miranda rights, without cops having to even prove understanding of rights. As someone naturally suspicious of police officer, I generally dont like giving them more leeway to trick people into giving up their rights.

But Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the case "demonstrates the power of custodial interrogation to wear down the defendant's willpower, which is what Miranda was designed to prevent."