Famous Miranda Rights Warning Could Get Rewrite

[CAL]

Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/07/ap/politics/main5925975.shtml)

The Supreme Court seems headed toward telling police they have to explicitly warn criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation.

The arguments in front of the justices Monday were the latest over how far the Miranda warning rights go.

Kevin Dwayne Powell was given Miranda warnings that included telling him he had a right to a lawyer before questioning. Powell's lawyers appealed, saying police didn't tell him he had a right to have a lawyer during police interrogation. The Florida Supreme Court overturned it. Justice Stephen Breyer said Monday that Miranda rights say a suspect has the right to have an attorney during questioning, and he asked repeatedly if the Florida officers made that plain to Powell.

[DD78]

This is so ridiculous. Just another technicality for a bunch of egg heads to debate in the abstract while the outcome means volumes to whether or not violent offenders who are guilty as sin get off or go to jail.

It's sickening.

On another note, isn't it odd to see Scalia and Sotomayor on basically the same side of the issue? Especially with Alito looking like he's lining up with Breyer.

[Etho]

That's a bit ridiculous. I mean so now along with reading Miranda to them you'll have explain what each point means to them in beyond plain English?

[DD78]

We have a pretty thorough warning here in RI. We practically beg the suspect to not talk to us but many times they still do. I always read it off a card that is currently in my locker at work but it goes a little something like this...

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law. You do not have to give any statements or answer any questions. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. If you do talk to the police you may stop at any time. Do you understand these rights as I have just read them to you?

We do have the "stop at any time" provision in our rights.

For DUI we have to read a longer version of the above at the scene and then a solid one page document containing rights in 8 point font at the station. It is considered preferable to give a suspect a rights form to sign prior to custodial questioning in any case. The form requires the suspect to place his initials on it EIGHT times and sign it.

I never understood Miranda v. Arizona as requiring the police to beg a suspect not to talk, but that's essentially what we do.

[Etho]

We've got the DWI statutory warning you have to read at some point, it's a good page long. I think most every state is about the same on the Miranda warning.

I can sort of understand the basis for the case law since the case is still relatively fresh in my mind. The guy was still guilty but just got off a technicality of claiming he was ignorant he could have a lawyer present. But hey it's the way times go. Adapt and overcome.

[Feet]

Problem; Jails are overflowing.

Legislative and court solution; Make it easier for dirtbags to get away with crime and reduce sentences (a la Arkansas cop-killer with his 108 year commuted sentence)

Feet solution; Build more prisons with stimulus money, increase executions and generate the three strike rule. Get convicted of your third felony and you receive the death penalty.:rock: