You have the Right

Thank goodness for our rights.

May we always do what is required to keep them.

All of them.

Always.

Let me be the first Villager to congratulate the Dallas Mavericks.

What is a legal technicality to one person can be an essential part of the law to another.

"Rights" go hand-in-hand with responsibilites. Nobody has a "right" to steal, extort, rape,abuse or exploit ... the list goes on ...... How do lawyers reconcile being paid to defend a client that they know to be guilty as charged?
This topic is very close to home - I have a brother who knows his "rights" - they have been read to him on numerous occasions. He spends time in prison for assorted petty offences. The blindfolded Lady Justice weighs the balances and finds people wanting. In need. Is punishment the answer? In my brother's case, obviously not - he is what they call a "repeat offender" so whatever "they" do is ineffecive. And expensive.
Anyway, it's nice to know that you have the right to make your attorney richer.
I think the Miranda Rights should include a short, pithy sentence about the victims of crime, who also have rights.
 

In 1968, my legal instructor in the Army Intelligence School reviewed the Miranda decision for us, along with a bunch of others (Wainright v. Gideon was another).  His conclusion was that good police work would abnegate any problem from Miranda, that violating Miranda rights was sloppy police work.  It was the old "let's find someone who looks guilty and use him to close the case."  The Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court cases say, by the way, that we may not be searched without a warrant and, at the least, probable cause.  That is violated every time we pass through an airport.  You are presumed guilty until proven innocent and searched on no specific grounds whatsoever.  We have given up all sorts of civil rights since 9/11.  And once gone they are unlikely to come back.  Don't tell me we are "safer," because I don't believe that.  Remember what Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

good luck on this one.  The whiney enforcement of "victims' rights" and the asinine assertion of prisoners' rights will make you long to visit a sausage factory.  Lawyers get paid what they do because they sit there and listen to this stuff - so everybopdy else won't have to.  To answer your question, Hazel, at least in the US, the difference between having a lawyer and not is not so much abouit whether or not you are guilty as it is about getting the best possible deal.  The world divides pretty neatly between people who pay the asking price and people who don't.  In some places, such as restaurants, offering to pay 10% less would be considered insulting. In others, failing to do so would be considered foolish.  The legal system has grown up into  a place where bargaining is how things get done.  In a 15-plus year survey of criminal cases, large and small, I have run into one accused person  who was probably not guilty. She received a check in the mail, with instructions to cash it and mail the money back, less some amount she was allowed to keep. She got further instructions by phone.  Technically, she broke the law- presented a forged instrument and received the proceeds.  I correct myself. She was one of God's innocents, not merely not guilty. As I say, she was probably technically guilty  One of  probably 3 or 4 thousand. Some of the others were found Not Guilty.  They either went on to do something else, or like the guy who narrowly misses driving off a cliff, changed their ways and stayed out of trouble.  I am certain there were others who were actually not guilty, maybe even innocent, but they do not stand out in my memory now.  The level of fear and coercion ( pronounced co- Hearse- shun, I was cohearsed) alleged by guys who are tough enough to walk around with guns and shoot and kill people is surprising, but these are not generally people whose fathers taught them never to sign something without reading it.  MIRANDA is for them. And there are few as articulate as the guy who didn't finish high school, but who has spent a few hours in the prison library and is now  convinced his lawyer did him wrong.   It is about 95% bluff.  But he has 20 some odd years of time to read and relax ahead of him, so he may as well see if people are as stupid as they sometimes seem.

I do agree Lynn, we have given up more and more and more.  We've allowed Big Brother in and now can't get rid of him.  Many years ago, I thought we were having trouble with our phone.  It turned out that since the federal government was investigating a client of my husbands on an unrelated matter, they were also tapping our home phone!  They don't have to let you know about this phone tap until it's taken off.  Imagine all the private conversations they were privy to.  Certainly now with the internet and cell phones, it's so much easier to tap into our lives.  Even when looking for something specific (terrorist "chatter") don't they fall upon a nugget of something else every now and then?  But how many of us are being watched for that one nugget?  What else is being used and filed away?

"We have given up all sorts of civil rights since 9/11."

Care to enumerate?

Ten years ago on a cold dark night,
someone was killed 'neath the
town hall lights.
There were few at the scene, but they all agreed,
that
the man who ran looked a lot like me.
Oh, I had the right to remain silent and I did,
least that's the way Johnny and Joni sing it
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pALSKcWcVEk

Eeeew~ the joy of being squeaky clean.  Not even a speeding fine on my driver license. Nothing. Miracles do happen!

In some cases, Hazel, I would agree with you.  But in so many cases, people aren't are intimidated by the court system and a good policeman who can make you seem to say things that you don't mean to.
 
But richer?  Several of my husband's clients have actually sent him more money because they felt he didn't charge enough.....this is very true.  Granted they will probably bronze him when he goes and he'll be on car dashboards.  As well, in our country, we have a public defender system whereby those who cannot afford a lawyer will have one assigned to them.  Then there are lawyers who request being placed on a roll and are then court-appointed and paid.  So it isn't always a question of 'getting richer'.
 
How can they defend someone they know to be guilty?  In our country there is supposed to be a supposition of innocense until found out to be otherwise.  Sometimes it works, sometimes (OJ Simpson -- though there seems to be some kind of karmic justice going on there) it doesn't.
 
There are good and bad among them all, just as in other fields.

I have to agree with ANDY in spite of having a plate on my wall with the Shakespearean quote "First kill all the lawyers." Our system of justice is the most fair that I have seen demonstrated and as such I don't think that the attorneys who defend the guilty should be maligned but rather the opposite.

Thanks, Andy for your comment. It helps to put things into perspective.

You're welcome Hazel; I too had an uncle who spent most of his life in jail.  In fact, it frightened him to think of walking down the street free. 

Here, here Lynn!

When I was a teenager, I had hair down to my knees, was a California surfer and made my own clothes using velvets, leather, lace. Many considered me a hippie but in truth, I always considered myself a "conservative". To hippies, that meant, at that time, I was a John Bircher. To me, that meant I thought through things and made decisions or opinions based on knowledge I could garner through information, not emotion.
It seems today that we, as a society, are so influenced by news spin, billboards, internet flash news, etc., that we no longer take the time to really research and find "The truth" about anything. It has become a "news agrees, consentually, what to spin", and we react with a mob mentality.
911 happens and the news gives us an evil face, and without any proof, we are ready to fight an enemy handed to us on a platter. Years later, too much evidence comes out contradicting what the news spins, but now- too late in the game, it goes by without a squeak.
Yes, I stand by the Miranda law. Anything that allows the time for process of information gathering is important - especially today.
Americans are too willing to give up certain rights and freedoms to "be safe", and in truth, this government may become unsafe for it's people.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Where to begin!  I live in the city were one of the biggest trials of recent times is taking place.  They had to go to a different part of the state to find members of the jury that had not heard of this case or had any opinion on it one iota!  Well, I guess who had to be living under a rock not to have known about it, but then again, there are parts of my state where people do not pay any mind to what is going on in the world except for their own little bubble.
 
Yes, the Miranda Law.  Yes, we all have our rights.  Even if we do not report our child missing for 30 days, police finding decaying pieces of human remains in the trunk of our car, and do not show one bit of emotion at the finding of the dead body your child. 
 
Yes, we all have our rights...even if we "tweet" inappropriate messages and pictures to minors.  
 
Yes, we live in wonderful country.  Freedom is something many of us take for granted and think, just because we exist here in the United States, we are entitled to it
 
Yes, thank God for the Supreme Court and Miranda v. Arizona.  Thank God for the 5th Amendment and our Constitution.  If not, I would not be writing this and you would not be reading it.
 
Thank you for letting me put my two cents in.  I feel much better.  Have a great day!

Andy - 8:17 - well done.
Have to disagree about lawyers getting richer Hazel - depends on who it is.

I look at my faux parchment copies of the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights often as I sing along with the great Taj Mahal "ain't nobody's bidness but my own"...liberty is my drug of choice Mr. Von Mises.

Wow....pretty interesting comments! Hazel, thank you for your sharing, you're just amazing. My young son had thought of going into law but said he couldn't bear the thought of defending anyone he knows is guilty. Yet, I can understand why lawyers are important for through them, everyone gets to have his story heard.  Actually, I believe the 5th Amendment/Miranda rights did not originate in the US, it spun off from the Right to Silence, enshrined in common law in many countries, particularly those previously colonized by the British, including Australia, NZ, Hong Kong and India. It appears that as far back as 16th century England, the tricky issue of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare ('no man is bound to accuse himself') became evident when people hauled to court were made to swear to truthfully answer questions without knowing what they were being accused of. This led to having to choose between the mortal sin of perjury (lying under oath to protect themselves), contempt of court (refusing to answer) or betraying one's natural instinct/duty of self preservation (if told the truth to honor the oath). According to what I read, this was termed the "cruel trilemma" (does this mean we can use terms like quadlemma, pentalemma or quintlemma etc???) I understand that laws enacted in the UK in the last decade have swung to include the proviso that while you may choose to remain silent, any subsequent revelation that you may rely on in defense may be jeopardized. Certainly, this is so in Singapore; there is a feeling that the judge will think you've had time to "make it up".

I'll be interested to hear what Bert has to say. Has the 5th Amendment been tweaked? Also, do terrorists have such rights? 

I lived in a world where there was no justice and no court.  i became a thief to prevent my famly from starving to death.  I became to believe that when we destroy a life or does great injustice to a fellowman - whether judge by the court or not - pays for it by carrying it with them all their lives.  No one who has committed crimes against man will get away.  We all live for happiness and if we committ an evil crime against man - happiness is no longer a choice in our lives. We will destroy ourselves slowly the moment we do an evil deed.  We never get away wiith a destructive act against mankind because we are mankind and we know we are guilty and that is a punishment that takes away our rights of a quality life within. If we do not care and do not feel - that is the greatest punishment of all - what is a life without feelings.  We have turned into robots.   Never think that the evil doer gets away with his crime - he has to live in hell on earth.  Therefore courts can make their laws - a crime committed cannot ever get away from the one who committed the crime. 
 
We might be rich or might seem to do well but within we have to pay for every crime we committ.  There is no way even with the best lawyers to escape from oneself.
 
If men has no conscious - they have no life even before they committ a crime.  Life is all about creativity and love - and if that is not in our lives - we might as well be dead.
 
Crimes out of necessity like stealing food when we can not feed our family is not a crime - the crime belongs to the one who has too much and will not share fairly with the poor who are not able to feed their children because of injustice and greedy behavior by few on the top.
 
I know life is more complicated - but that is how I see it this morning.  I believe that most lawyers talk too much and collect too much money when they win a case and will charge the next one twice as much.   I definitely stay away from a lawyer if I can.  I believe the fairest law - for us or against us is within ourselves.
 
The victims need justice to heal - I say please remember if you lose you case do not hate - believe that the Higher power will punish more severely than the court who made the wrong judgement. 
 
The above are my thoughts that  were hidden within me until today - therefore we can discuss them - whatever I state might be right or wrong - they are  just my thoughts and can be changed - even I could change my mind about my own thoughts.  Playing with thoughts is my serious game.  Give it to me if you feel like it and straighten me out.  I will appreciate it.
 
 
 
 
 

So many good points have been made all proving, I think,  that though it isn't perfect, we do live in a country where we can speak and know our rights.  To all have travelled the world, do you, as I have, at some point been very aware that you're not home now?  That you don't have those rights that are often taken for granted?
 
Welcome Idaho Producer, very well said,.
 
Thank you Giraffe :)
 
**Though I do have a problem with a congressman exposing his genitals acress the internet; porbably old fashioned of me.

**across** I know that

**probably** - I really need to read these a little more closely -- sorry

Q -- How do the police determine whether or not you "can afford" an attorney? Is this lawyer selection a voluntary thing? Is there a rule of "poverty" like for paying income tax? Just wondering...

As far as I know, the police do not determine it, the person does by requesting a lawyer.  I'm pretty sure that The Public Defender is available to anyone even if you can afford your own lawyer; one just asks.  The court appointed lawyer, I'm not too sure about.  I do know that unless you have a lawyer, or specifically say that you don't want one and will defend yourself (foolish, very foolish), one will be appointed for you.

1. Several years back as I have once reported, they
took away my toothpaste in St. Louis.  A brand new tube of Crest minty fresh
gel. 
 
It might have been a good thing.  Moments later
a young Franciscan Friar attempted to brush his teeth in the men's room but was
fortunately wrestled to the ground by a janitor, one flight attendant and three
TSA supervisors before he could unleash the fluoride gel and contribute to what?
global warming?  His protest was heard by fellow travelers as they carted him
off, "But it's Tom's, TOM'S of Maine."
 
 
2.  I go to bed every night trying to come up with
a logical explanation of how WTC 7 fell.  I have read the report and the only
pages that make sense are the ones marked This page intentionally left
blank.
 
3.  I do not feel comfortable having made that last
statement and fear future phone tapping and harassssment by J. Edgar Hoover
and Elvis.
 

That said, I do feel safer traveling by air,
knowing that pilots and air marshals are the only gun toting hombres on board. 
As I recall, there have been no mid air bombings or skyjackings since 9/11.

 
I know the preceding has nothing to do with
lawyers, but when a question is posed and it involves remuneration, I will
always be the first to raise and wave my hand.

Paolos ~ If he were alive, I just know that Elvis would call (or at least write) directly -- no, no tapping for him.

Surf's up Idaho P- longboard hangs in my office but the knees need Blue Emu applied routinely.

Everytime I open my mouth I incriminate myself. I am glad the thought police have limitations.

paolos #2. Yup.

Having been invited in for questioning about what might have happened to a man in the hospital with injuries, I said that I wasn't prepared to talk to the two officers.
One of them gave a snarky chuckle and said: "I'm sorry, have we read you your rights or something?"
"Nope, but that doesn't mean they don't exist."
Actually, it was the fact that they had not that caused me to believe that they had nothing.

The "lost rights" argument appears to be mostly hypothetical... unless you have been dragged out of line and given the full rectal, too much to hope for I guess, that kind of objection is, in my opinion, placing your time and convenience ahead of the safety of others.
It's worth reminding that a hell of a lot of people are dead... forever and a lot more of us have failed to join them owing to the efforts of thousands of people who work hard to keep us safe.
Acts of terror have changed everything permanently but the worst part is having made sniveling, impatient, mistrusting whiners out of too many of us and it is that attitude exactly that has caused the time-wasting randomness in security when ethnic profiling would work better and save time.

 

Andy ~ I have it on good authority that Elvis was a
closet tapper.
For your viewing and listening pleasure and still
on topic...
in a manner of speaking.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rpn_7OMV0c
 
I was once told, You have the OBLIGATION to
remain silent.
Okay, more than once.

Willie Trask~ My son, his wife and daughter returned home to find thier house turned over, their little pet dog with a kitchen knife in his chest. Dead. Just local kids needing to steal stuff to sell to buy drugs. The "whiney assertion of victims's rights" may bear some weight with a 6 year old who is frightened to sleep in her own bed in case the bad boys come back.

I wholeheartedly agree with Hazel's 7:02 a.m. comment, first paragraph in particular.  In their misguided zeal to defend the wrongdoers (their zeal in itself is an interesting subject for psychological study) - they put the bad guys out on the street, with a great big grin on their faces thinking "hey I beat the system." 
 
Yeah you did, you know it, we all know it, and shame on the attorney who got you off.
 
But keep his or her card in your baggy pants pockets because more often than not, you're going to need to be calling him or her again.
 
 
 
 

As far as Casey Anthony is concerned at the time she was not given her Miranda rights, allegedly, she was not under arrest.  At the time she was put in cuffs for those few moments, and put in the back of the car - she was not under arrest.
 
And she knew it.
 
But don't ask her if she knew it, because she'll lie to you.
 
 
Liar Liar.
I've read 20,000 pages of discovery and because I'm not a juror, I can say that this woman is as guilty as guilty comes, if she hadn't killed her little girl, she'd kill someone else down the line.  Quite possibly, she could have become a serial killer, killing anyone who gets in her way.
 
Let me add to that :  if the prosecution's most excellent circumstantial case is for whatever reason found to be not proven, and Casey Anthony walks out of jail and onto the streets, you'll hear about her again, in the context, again, of a murder.
 
I mean:  what's a girl to do when she wants something and someone gets in her way?  It's only reasonable to gather up a little chloroform, a little duct tape, the trunk of a car, a swamp...
 
and voila, it's La Bella Vita.
 
 
Unless you're really unlucky. 
Then it's the needle.
 
 
 
 

Paolos ~ no, no -- not my Elvis -- so many of my illusions have been shattered, not this too :)
 
But I do thank you for the video.
 
Park ~ The jury was read lie after lie after lie after lie.  If she opens her mouth, it's to lie.  I suppose I commend her parents for standing behind her, but certainly something of psycho she is surfaced in childhood and should have been addressed.  Of course she's guilty and sadly a life was lost while she partied.....so cold-blooded.

I have an old friend who is a prominent defense attorney in the Northwest. When a potential client or client admits to the crime, he informs them that their choices are two: plead guilty or hire a new attorney.
It is only because of rigorous defense that you see meticulous prosecution.
The OJ trial was not corrupt defense. It illustrated how sloppy, incompetent and careless were the police and forensic experts in every aspect of their jobs... the prosecution was no better.
He did it.

I spent over 33 years as an IRS thumb breaker. I worked in a middling sized town, and for a lengthy period of time there was only one criminal investigator in our office. As I was the senior thumb breaker (Collection guy), when the C.I. fella went out to do stuffage that took two people I was who he drug along.
There was this local CPA who was well known for his "creative accounting methods". Basically what he did was to make up receipts for non-existant client's expenses for the purpose of lowering their overall income. The receipts were so obviously phoney that anyone who had  even glanced at them could tell they were bogus.
Now don't get me wrong here, reading Miranda Rights to someone is no laughing matter. It's not TV. There's no closing your eyes in the scarey parts, and there's no ads to give ya a mental break. It was real, and real intense almost always.
I should say I liked this CPA too, even if he was a crook. He was a jolly crook.
Anyway, he fouled his pants when the C.I. guy read the Miranda to him. It was all I could do not to ... well ... you get the idea. I didn't know whether to laugh or run away but couldn'treally do either. Rights are darned good things, but sometimes it should be done by email.
 <<<<< Ask me about a stakeout we did at a coastal tavern where I sat next to a dog at a bar who had a cigarette in one paw, a beer in front of him, all the while wearing sunglasses. Honest!>>>>>

 We've all sat next to dogs in bars... so have they.

Her defense for her lying is that she suddenly recalled that her father and brother had molested her since she was in grammar school.  Sexually abused her.  Made her perform oral sex on him (Dad) before going off to grade school in the morning...all through her early years.
 
This fabrication was presented by her defense "attorney" in his opening statement.  It came out of nowhere.  No mention of any of this in all the three years of her lies, just a big old story and I think the defense "attorney" should face charges if the jury doesn't buy his story, although I understand an attorney's allegations and accusations are somehow exempt from being considered slanderous.  Too bad about that.
 
Further, the defense alleges that the man who discovered the remains of her daughter was actually in possession on those remains since death (June 17, by accidental drowning during her watch and her father's watch), somehow getting them from the car, storing them somewhere, then placing them in the woody swamp area where they were evenually found, which would then show -- Casey Anthony could not have put them there because at the time they were discovered she'd been in jail for three months.
 
Thus this "mother" in name only, is blaming her father for covering up the death of her daughter by accidental drowning, along with sexually molesting her since she was a child herself.  Her brother, too, with the molesting thing.
 
As for the guy who found the remains, he's going to be blamed for hauling around a corpse for god knows how long and putting it in the woods then calling the cops months later so he could become famous.
 
 
This, the product of her and her "attorney's" fertile imaginations and willingness to play fast and loose with the justice system.
 
She's had her rights and more.  She's had the State of Florida's taxpayers money paying for this circus, when she could have stopped the craziness any time she wanted.
 
I would wish, I could hope, that one of these years, the rights of the victims are viewed as sacrosanct as those of the accused.
 
I would also hope that one of these years, trial attornies will be held to their code of ethics in the courtroom, as much as are their witnesses, or more actually - but at the very least when a lawyer opens his mouth in the courtroom he's telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and if found to be lying, like their clients, they get the same punishment as their clients.
 
 
 
Just kidding about the "same punishment" part -- the jails would be stuffed with lawyers if that were to happen.  But I do think they should be disbarred.  Poof.  All gone.  No more courtroom antics for you.  The Bar can give, and the Bar should taketh away.  So help them god.

Maybe the question we need to ask is, what's more acceptable: some guilty people out on the streets or a lot of not guilty people in prisons and the guilty ones still out there?

STONEY: Noooo, this was a real canine of the 4 legged type. As dogs go, not bad looking, but a 4 legged, woofy, canine type. I don't care how long you'd been out on submarine duty, this "dog" was, well, a dawg!

HAZEL:  Lawyers will tell you that, every Citizen is entitled to Representation under The Law, and the presumption of Innocense until the Burden of Proof has been met by the State, to declare the Accused, Guilty ... In most of the cases where the REAL Turd is actually Guilty, the Lawyer is Appointed by the Court to Act in the Turd's Defense, and he does the very Best job that he can, to ensure the Accused gets a Fair Trial, and so that some asshole doesn't get off, at the Appellate Level, because of Ineffective Assistance at Counsel ... In some States, Double Jeopardy attaches at that point, and the Turd is back on the street defiling civilization ... Not Good for anybody ... Appointive Cases are where most Lawyers actually learn how to practice Law or ... they learn how The Law is REALLY practiced in their County/State; There are as many Power Brokers in the Court System(s) as there are in Politics ... And, a half-assed Lawyer can make a pretty good living doing Appointed Cases, without ever having to win a Case, and the best he can hope for(for the Turd) is to mitigate the situation and lessen the sentence ... If the Case indicates that the Turd is destined to meet Old Sparky, and the Lawyer gets the sentence Reduced to Life without Parole, it is considered a Win ... Lawyer gets the same Standard Fee, allowable for each Type of Case(Capital Cases sometimes pay a little more) Defending Turds, on Appointed Cases, is just like being a Dermotologist; The work is not that taxing, no House  calls to make, and you hardly ever lose a Patient ... In Short, Somebody has to do it, and it is a good way to learn one's Trade ... For a Lawyer to have pangs of conscience over the Guilt of his Client, woul require him to have a Conscience ... The last Lawyer I saw with a Conscience, was Spencer Tracy  ... Usually, all of that Piss n' Vinegar Idealism is beaten out of Lawyers by the time they finish their First Year in Practice, and they find out that Justice, is actually, Just Us .......

Stoney***12:45 yes!! hear,hear!  Ivan--I like that. .."Justice, is actually, Just Us.....:!! 

hazel - I agree with you that not enough is done to recognize victims' rights. Too many crimes simply go unpunished, or not seriously punished, and no one compensates the victims. One case here concerns a man whose store was broken into and items stolen 3 times, so he lay in wait with his gun, and when they thieves came back again, shot 2 of them. Guess who is in jail. My sympathy lies with the victim most of the time.
 
This Casey Anthony trial is a sideshow. I think she will get Life, not the death penalty. They have thown up enough doubt that a jurist would find it hard to say 'Beyond a shadow of doubt" that she killed the child. But it seems apparent that she is a narcissistic egotist, not unlike Susan Smith who drowned her 2 little boys so she could have more fun with her boyfriend. Casey seems to be that kind of party girl person. Some people should not have children. Do you think there will ever be a required class on parenting  like there is to get a driver's license?

If I did not make it clear, I think of the man whose store was repeatedly robbed as the victim in that case.

Hazel--you truly do have the wide open eyes, both sides of the fence view.  Truly tragic for both sides....a child afraid the bad men will come back and your brother, who learns only that he'll be the guest of the gov't for a short period of time, instead of curbing the behaviour.  And you are 100 per cent absolutely right on target that with "rights come RESPONSIBILITIES"--why, oh why is that not clear to people anymore?

Thanks, Mooseloop~ seems there are more laws about keeping dogs than there are about spawning children into dysfunctional families. I'd argue that an angry, out of control teenager is more dangerous than a bull-pit dog. Parenting classes? Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
I never thought it was my 'right' to have a child, it was a privilege, a gift from God, a little soul for me to teach that he would NOT be some feral creature running the streets robbing hard working store keepers. My heart goes out to Fay who obviously suffered terrible times where the protection of the law and your 'rights' did not prevail.

By the way---welcome back Hazel. Hope the vacay was good.  It's great to have your trenchant and wittily entertaining comments and outlook back!

Hello, everyone. I personally don't see any reason why a person taken into custody in connection to a crime shouldn't be read their Miranda rights up front. The failure to read those rights to an individual is just sloppy policework and the officer who fails to follow procedure properly should be penalized. As far as blaming the defense attorney goes, I have issues about the automatic idea that the counsel assigned by the public defender's office or the criminal defense attorney are slimeballs and crooks themselves. Canon 7 of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility states: 

"A LAWYER SHOULD REPRESENT A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW"

Even if the evidence shows that the defendant did something illegal, it is the responisibility of the defense attorney to make certain that all mitigating facts and circumstances are brought before the judge and jury. If I were 20 years old and considering becoming an attorney I would not go into criminal defense law because I couldn't guarantee that I could zealously represent a peron who harmed a child, for example.

I highly respect those men and women who can work in criminal defense because their work significantly reduces the number of innocent defendants who end up being convicted of acrime they didn't commit. As much as I don't want people who are violent, rapists and murderers out on teh streets, I definitely don't want someone who didn't commit a crime in prison or on death row.

Yes, it would be great if every single individual knew and understood their rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the government can't force everyone to memorize them. And even if they did, memorization doesn't mean that an individual really understands what it means. By requiring that police read the Miranda's statement of what those protective rights actually are to a person taken into custody, each defendant's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is protected.

OK, that's more than I expected to say on the topic. And like someone said earlier, I'd really like to hear Bert's take on this.

Cheers!

Hello, everyone. I personally don't see any reason why a person taken into custody in connection to a crime shouldn't be read their Miranda rights up front. The failure to read those rights to an individual is just sloppy policework and the officer who fails to follow procedure properly should be penalized. As far as blaming the defense attorney goes, I have issues about the automatic idea that the counsel assigned by the public defender's office or the criminal defense attorney are slimeballs and crooks themselves. Canon 7 of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility states: 

"A LAWYER SHOULD REPRESENT A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW"

Even if the evidence shows that the defendant did something illegal, it is the responisibility of the defense attorney to make certain that all mitigating facts and circumstances are brought before the judge and jury. If I were 20 years old and considering becoming an attorney I would not go into criminal defense law because I couldn't guarantee that I could zealously represent a peron who harmed a child, for example.

I highly respect those men and women who can work in criminal defense because their work significantly reduces the number of innocent defendants who end up being convicted of acrime they didn't commit. As much as I don't want people who are violent, rapists and murderers out on teh streets, I definitely don't want someone who didn't commit a crime in prison or on death row.

Yes, it would be great if every single individual knew and understood their rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the government can't force everyone to memorize them. And even if they did, memorization doesn't mean that an individual really understands what it means. By requiring that police read the Miranda's statement of what those protective rights actually are to a person taken into custody, each defendant's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is protected.

OK, that's more than I expected to say on the topic. And like someone said earlier, I'd really like to hear Bert's take on this.

Cheers!

Hello, everyone. I personally don't see any reason why a person taken into custody in connection to a crime shouldn't be read their Miranda rights up front. The failure to read those rights to an individual is just sloppy policework and the officer who fails to follow procedure properly should be penalized. As far as blaming the defense attorney goes, I have issues about the automatic idea that the counsel assigned by the public defender's office or the criminal defense attorney are slimeballs and crooks themselves. Canon 7 of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility states:

"A LAWYER SHOULD REPRESENT A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW"

Even if the evidence shows that the defendant did something illegal, it is the responisibility of the defense attorney to make certain that all mitigating facts and circumstances are brought before the judge and jury. If I were 20 years old and considering becoming an attorney I would not go into criminal defense law because I couldn't guarantee that I could zealously represent a peron who harmed a child, for example.

I highly respect those men and women who can work in criminal defense because their work significantly reduces the number of innocent defendants who end up being convicted of acrime they didn't commit. As much as I don't want people who are violent, rapists and murderers out on teh streets, I definitely don't want someone who didn't commit a crime in prison or on death row.

Yes, it would be great if every single individual knew and understood their rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the government can't force everyone to memorize them. And even if they did, memorization doesn't mean that an individual really understands what it means. By requiring that police read the Miranda's statement of what those protective rights actually are to a person taken into custody, each defendant's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is protected.

OK, that's more than I expected to say on the topic. And like someone said earlier, I'd really like to hear Bert's take on this.

Cheers!

Hello, everyone. I personally don't see any reason why a person taken into custody in connection to a crime shouldn't be read their Miranda rights up front. The failure to read those rights to an individual is just sloppy policework and the officer who fails to follow procedure properly should be penalized. As far as blaming the defense attorney goes, I have issues about the automatic idea that the counsel assigned by the public defender's office or the criminal defense attorney are slimeballs and crooks themselves. Canon 7 of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility states:

"A LAWYER SHOULD REPRESENT A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW"

Even if the evidence shows that the defendant did something illegal, it is the responisibility of the defense attorney to make certain that all mitigating facts and circumstances are brought before the judge and jury. If I were 20 years old and considering becoming an attorney I would not go into criminal defense law because I couldn't guarantee that I could zealously represent a peron who harmed a child, for example.

I highly respect those men and women who can work in criminal defense because their work significantly reduces the number of innocent defendants who end up being convicted of acrime they didn't commit. As much as I don't want people who are violent, rapists and murderers out on teh streets, I definitely don't want someone who didn't commit a crime in prison or on death row.

Yes, it would be great if every single individual knew and understood their rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the government can't force everyone to memorize them. And even if they did, memorization doesn't mean that an individual really understands what it means. By requiring that police read the Miranda's statement of what those protective rights actually are to a person taken into custody, each defendant's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is protected.

OK, that's more than I expected to say on the topic. And like someone said earlier, I'd really like to hear Bert's take on this.

Cheers!

Sorry about hte double post. I just adpated my browser and its doing stupid stuff like that. I think I'm goign to spend the next half hour reinstalling the old version...

Also sorry about the typos

Dancingkats~  You got the Bert- Burps!
Carol~ Thanks, I, too, despair of people who claim 'rights' but take no responsibility.  

Well said, Dancingkatz. ...6:23. Yeah...where's Bert?
 

Miranda Rights or not, the scales of justice are still out of balance in the US. Most disturbing to me is the fact that, based on several legal precedents, the police may now lie to you about the facts surrounding your case when they interrogate you if they think that this may elicit a confession from you.

I find this morally repugnant and long for an instance when it provokes a false confession case that gets appealed to the Supreme Court. It is anything BUT justice if the police are allowed to lie to you!

I agree wholeheartedly:  there is not enough done for the victim.  It seems that we bend over backwards and then again for the criminal; some of whom are repeat offenders; some of whom obviously did it; a lot of whom keep us safer when they're in jail.

Bert I was hoping that you and your experience would join in.   The best part of what you wrote is your still firm belief in liberty and freedom and the constitution!  I don't know how you do it after all the years of seeing what you see and doing what you do.  

In my humble opinion, when the Miranda Rights were instituted, it was a classic case of ‘throwing out the baby with the bath water'. Instead of intelligently nudging the scales of justice to protect the rights of those who may be accused but innocent; it was a full-tilt pendulum swing in favor of all manner of criminal. 

I believe in the precept of being ‘innocent until proven guilty' but I am also a big fan of ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse'.

I have more faith in an imperfect system that for the most part, does it's very best to protect the public than in those who are for the vast majority of the time, arrested for ‘due cause'

I'm not totally naive to believe that all those who wear ‘white hats' and badges are always the good guys, but I'll take my chances with them over those who commit crimes against society and who's victims too often include crimes against those among us who are the most innocent and defenseless.

It's so ironic that this law is named after someone with a rap sheet of terrible crimes that spans decades, and in all probability was as guilty as he confessed to be. This doesn't make me feel safer at all..... but maybe that's just me.

In today's world where there are few secrets because almost everybody on the street is able, seemingly ready, and more than willing to not only take videos of the crimes being committed, but also seem to be around to chronicle the suspect's arrest.

We worry about the eye of big brother when it seems like everyone old enough to tie their shoe laces has a cell phone equipped with a camera.

I'm not smart enough to provide a fool proof and corruption free solution.....and I may be wrong in my thought process.......but, I'm not at all in doubt.

Be safe out there...... peace out

It's an odd thing but it isn't ever about did he or she do it? It is about, having laid charges, can the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
They have, as a rule, a huge advantage in terms of resources and yet, most of their convictions come about as a result of public defenders pleading cases out not to mention that the police are permitted to engage in deceit to, in a manner of speaking, coerce confessions.
In Illinois, DNA evidence has shown that more rather than fewer constraints on police power seem to be needed.

I can never forget the coffee shop chatter after the Mark Fuhrman/Robert Shapiro dust-up during the prosecution phase of the OJ trial.
The consensus was that Shapiro had been embarrassed.
"Maybe," I suggested, "he has him all set up for the defense phase."
He had and Fuhrman was shown to be just about enough to blow the case by himself.

Stoney, you are right.  Nobody much talks about not having done it, buut not being provably guilty.  And there are  juries in some jurisdictions that do not trust the police.    However, the reason so  many Public Defender cases get pled is that the people frewuently  recognize they are dead in the water and don't want to spend money on private counsel.   After hiring the high powered guy the first time, and the semi-high powered guyt the nexty, granny may refuse to go under the mattress when Bubba gets arrested a third time. Let the Public Offender take care of it and save the money for the children's Christmas while he is "down the road".    And, believe me, plenty of non PD cases plead, too.  The thing to ponder is this: a prosecutor has the discretion to pick which cases he will try and which ones he will refuse to go forward with. Under those circumstances, you have to wonder how they EVER lose.  The last time I looked, well over 95% of the cases that result in convictions (in SC)  got that way because the defendant pled guilty.  Of the remaining cases, that is, the ones that went to trial, the conviction rate is  about fifty percent.  In other words, you might as well flip a coin.  Of course, it is much more complex- the slam dunk cases almost always plead and the junk cases frequently go away, especially if the same defendant is obviously guilty of another charge ( like the guy who sold dope on camera three times, but cleverly avoided being filmed two more times- the average prosecutor will settloe for three convictions and the average defense lawyer is pleased to get two dismissals. )  Sometimes political motives lead to prosecution- after the media get through with it, many a case looks more obvious than it really is...  I stand by my earlier comment- it is not pretty at all.