In that case, I can go along with it. The Miranda warning is not a law, and therefore is not a violation of law or rights, as long as evidence is not allowed in court.
Miranda v. Arizona's most important point is this:
Where constitutional rights are concerned, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
That principle MUST be upheld by all government employees.
But the warning itself was just a suggestion in the Miranda case. The court said basically, "If you give this warning, then courts will presume that the defendant was aware that they did not have to talk and that they could have a lawyer present. If they still talk, then that is on them."
Since an absence of the warning, by itself, is not a violation of law or a right, though it is a violation of department policy, I can see it being used as the tool it was intended to be: to disallow evidence where it cannot be shown that the defendant knew he did not have to say anything (Miranda gave a confession).
However ...
Police who DO violate the law and who DO violate the rights of the people they come into contact with SHOULD be held accountable via civil rights lawsuits against them personally.
Because there is also a court case out there (forget which one) that says that there is no such thing as immunity for anyone who commits a crime.
Does it still prohibit evidence being presented in court if a defendant makes a statement where no Miranda warning was given?
Because THAT would be a serious problem.
Just out of curiosity, why would that be such a problem?
I spent some years wasting my life in the criminal world, and most of my life out of that world.
People know their rights for the most part, and those that don't, fuck 'em. RTFM.
Why do cops have to hamstring themselves by interrupting if they're confessing? As long as it's not being beaten out of them.
Is it a problem?
Or have we just been told, over and over and over, our entire adult lives, that it must be a problem?
There's lots of shit we've been force fed for decades that ain't true.
Is this one of them?
Or no?
We really need to start thinking hard on a whole lot of shit we've been indoctrinated into believing.
So, that's my question. Is this one of those things?
In that case, I can go along with it. The Miranda warning is not a law, and therefore is not a violation of law or rights, as long as evidence is not allowed in court.
Miranda v. Arizona's most important point is this:
That principle MUST be upheld by all government employees.
But the warning itself was just a suggestion in the Miranda case. The court said basically, "If you give this warning, then courts will presume that the defendant was aware that they did not have to talk and that they could have a lawyer present. If they still talk, then that is on them."
Since an absence of the warning, by itself, is not a violation of law or a right, though it is a violation of department policy, I can see it being used as the tool it was intended to be: to disallow evidence where it cannot be shown that the defendant knew he did not have to say anything (Miranda gave a confession).
However ...
Police who DO violate the law and who DO violate the rights of the people they come into contact with SHOULD be held accountable via civil rights lawsuits against them personally.
Because there is also a court case out there (forget which one) that says that there is no such thing as immunity for anyone who commits a crime.