Is it time to rethink "miranda rights"?

Monsters hide behind this.

from JoeUser Forums
While in 1966 Miranda rights {the right to remain silent and to an attorney} was a ground breaking rule to keep cops from pounding a confession out of you, I think because of the coeuy case in fla. And the present case in Idaho, of Shasta groene, and this level 3 child molester hiding behind Miranda rights while a Childs life might hang in the balance we might want to revisit Miranda rights.

The right to remain silent when a life hangs in the balance should be revoked; this particular monster should be eligible for coercive interrogation, just like any other terrorist. Because in fact that is what a child molester does, terrorize his victims.

To be fair as panel should be present during interrogation of a defendant to make sure he or she is not tortured into a confession, but sleep deprivation and other gentle tactics should be allowed.

Why we as a country insist on protecting these monsters is beyond me. We afford more protection under the law than the victims get from the degenerate creatures.

It’s about time the people get back one of the basic freedoms that America used to stand for, the freedom from fear.

These particular evil beings move from state to state molesting and defiling our children and we get no protection from the courts.
17,993 views 72 replies
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
#2 by Manopeace
Monday, July 04, 2005


FREE MYRRANDER NOW!


altho I agree with myrr should be freed, what does it have to do with my article?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
#4 by Manopeace
Monday, July 04, 2005


what does it have to do with my article?


Not a thing..... just sounds the same


you are indeed a loyal friend to myrr, and one silly man.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah so the reality comes to the forefront. But really, do you seriously think some people shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else? That officially not everyone deserves the best defence? The current legal system, and the same kind of system we're trying to export to Iraq at present, makes every allowance for the authorities to do their jobs. If it comes down to a life hung in the balance, regulations dictate the course. To do what you're asking, to take away people's rights, is more along Soviet Communist lines than anything else. And take heed. If you're wish is ever granted, there will be no way anyone could possibly pretend the US is the land of the free and that bulldung. Now if it doesn't bother you to allow a doormat for tyranny, all in the name of bogus security, then alright. It's not my route though.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
7 by Reiki-House
Monday, July 04, 2005


Ah so the reality comes to the forefront. But really, do you seriously think some people shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else


I think monsters should be treated as monsters, since they are devoid of feelings for others, why should they have any rights?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think monsters should be treated as monsters, since they are devoid of feelings for others, why should they have any rights?


This, of course, means that they don't qualify as having the right to a fair trial, right? If they look guilty, then let the cops administer justice the old fashioned way. Just beat the crap outta them, gently of course.

MM, I know you really despise those who are guilty. As do I. But, to deny constitutional right for those who may be guilty sans a fair trial is paving the way to tossing the constitution out in its entirety.

Scares the crap out of me, that's for sure. And, I haven't done anything wrong. What happens if I'm picked up in some kind of sweep, and I look like the guy who maybe did the nasty deed, but I'm not him. Are you saying that the cops have the right to commit "gentle torture" till I confess, even though I'm not guilty, just to give them what they want to hear? Is that what you're saying? What do you define as gentle torture? Sleep deprivation is likely very easy at first. Then it becomes tortuous. How about no bathroom rights? Then sheer humiliation from wetting oneself over and over is tortuous. What other "gentle tactics" do you consider appropriate? (gee, this is sounding like the Abu Graib and Gitmo torture discussions......)

I do know that the scumbags who are hiding behind miranda rights rather than disclosing a kidnap victim is horrific. But, again, there is this slippery slope thing wherein the lines for what may be acceptable have a tendency to become blurred. Not a good idea. In fact, a very, very bad idea.

I sure as shit hope you're not a cop, judge, lawyer, or anything relative to the judicial system. You'd be a really lousy candidate. In fact, I hope you never even get selected onto a jury. Seems you wanna pass down sentence without a trial. You scare the shit out of me, because you represent a faction of our society wants to do away with the state having the burdon of proof in cases. Just torture them gently till they give up what the cops want to hear, thereby not requiring the cops to make their own case. Sucky idea.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
9 by zinkadoodle
Monday, July 04, 2005


This, of course, means that they don't qualify as having the right to a fair trial, right? If they look guilty, then let the cops administer justice the old fashioned way. Just beat the crap outta them, gently of course.


no , no torture, a panel would oversee any questioning of these particular creeps, to make sure no torture happens, it's just that somewhere a young boy might still be alive and dieing slowly while we make sure the monsters rights are protected, slippery slope hell yes, scarey, yes to that too, but what are we to do to protect the children from this kind of crime?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
zink you have me so wrong, I am not the monster here, they are, and I have sat on a jury, and will sit again, I weigh carefully the evidence before making a judgement, and do NOT take the cops word as gospell.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
think monsters should be treated as monsters, since they are devoid of feelings for others, why should they have any rights?


Because they're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers in court, or until they plead guilty. Miranda rights know no race, color, creed, gender or sexual preference, and that's the way it needs to stay. It's in the best interests of the judicial system to have it that way....would you rather we had no Miranda rights, allowing this 'monster' to get off on a technicality?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
12 by dharmagrl
Monday, July 04, 2005


Because they're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers in court, or until they plead guilty. Miranda rights know no race, color, creed, gender or sexual preference, and that's the way it needs to stay. It's in the best interests of the judicial system to have it that way....would you rather we had no Miranda rights, allowing this 'monster' to get off on a technicality


again I say.... there is a segemnt of people that should be treated differently. like an convicted rapist at age 16 that raped another boy at gunpoint, then has more charges filed and was returned to prison, innocent? I do not think so.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
like an convicted rapist at age 16 that raped another boy at gunpoint, then has more charges filed and was returned to prison, innocent? I do not think so.


No, but he's paid his debt. He's done his time. He's entitled to constitutional protection just the same as anyone else. There's a reason courts don't allow prior offences to be bought into consideration...it's so that people who really are innocent are given a fair and unbiased trial.

Removing Miranda rights is taking a step backwards.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
#14 by dharmagrl
Monday, July 04, 2005


like an convicted rapist at age 16 that raped another boy at gunpoint, then has more charges filed and was returned to prison, innocent? I do not think so.


No, but he's paid his debt. He's done his time. He's entitled to constitutional protection just the same as anyone else. There's a reason courts don't allow prior offences to be bought into consideration...it's so that people who really are innocent are given a fair and unbiased trial.

Removing Miranda rights is taking a step backwards.


I am curious if you would be so quick to defend, if it was your child held captive by a monster, I say this not to start a war dharma, just out of me being curious, remember this title was asking a question and I was presenting one part of an arguement.ok? try to remember I do respect you and your opinions.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's a silly technicality. You can be arrested and charged and go to jail for breaking laws that you didn't even know existed, and yet if the police forget to say a little nursery rhyme when they arrest a serial child molester he can go free.

Everyone has the right to remain silent. It's called keeping your damned mouth shut. If people rattle off confessions, it's their own problem. If ignorance of a law doesn't prevent you from being prosecuted, then I don't understand why ignorance of the system should protect you.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most of you are missing what Miranda Rights are. First they are not rights at all. Miranda was nothing more than a decision by the SC that said that people are to stupid to know their own rights so police have to inform them of their constitutional rights at certain times.

First police do not need to read you your rights, only if they are going to ask you questions about a specific crime of which you are the suspect. If they are not going to ask you any questions, they do not need to read them to you.

ALso you must be in custody and not free to leave. SO if a cop stops you on the street and wants to talk to you and your dumb enough to admit to a crime, you didn't need your rights read to you as you were not in custody and were free to leave.

The Miranda Dec was a 1 vote split. Basically what the court said was for the benefit of stupid people who are to dumb to know their rights, we will make the cops tell them to you so you know what they are. But they do not have to do this under all circumstances.

I for one do not read them to suspects unless absolutly required. You get more and better information that way. Also I like leaving my in car camera on facing backwards into the prisoner area and the audio on and put two suspects in the car together. They usally are dumb enough to talk about the crime on video. LOL Anyway, no need to rethink Miranda, seasoned cops know when to and when not to use it.

IMHO..
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
#16 by BakerStreet
Monday, July 04, 2005


It's a silly technicality. You can be arrested and charged and go to jail for breaking laws that you didn't even know existed, and yet if the police forget to say a little nursery rhyme when they arrest a serial child molester he can go free.


exactly, and I for one think that is the crime .
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
17 by ShadowWar
Monday, July 04, 2005


Most of you are missing what Miranda Rights are


miranda was accused of stealing 8000 dollors from a bank, his "confessions" was beaten out of him, he was convicted and sent to prison, the SC reversed what happened to him, this decision along with escobar is the basis for monsteres hiding out behind thier "rights"
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
#18 by little_whip
Monday, July 04, 2005


The right to remain silent is not a Miranda right, MM, its a Constitutional one.


nope, it was a sc decision made in 1968 to prevent cops from getting confessions illegally. For it to be used to allow kids to die so some level 3 child rapist can have protection under the law is crap. what about the childs right to live?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's the bottom line when it comes to creating different forms of justice for each individual felon:
The law would be far too open in terms of interpretation and even individual lifestyles. For example, who is to say which crime is too horrendous and which is simply overly dosgusting? You know who? A Judge. I read about that US judge who likes thinking about banging little children. A scary thought thinking of his personal interpretation if he's presiding over a molesting case, maybe he'd give the guy seven years rather than 10 years. Who's to say? Well, not judges. So then who? You? Me? ShadowWar? There is no one who can do it so the law is the basic guideline which, if you trust in law and order, determines the course of action to be taken over those who do society harm. There's no flexibility* when it comes to the law, as there shouldn't be. And really, as mortals, who do we think would be able to take on the moral responsibility it would entail in order to give out individual justice? No one but Jesus Himself.

* I speak only of written law.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
am curious if you would be so quick to defend, if it was your child held captive by a monster, I say this not to start a war dharma, just out of me being curious, remember this title was asking a question and I was presenting one part of an arguement.ok? try to remember I do respect you and your opinions.


Would I want him to be Mirandized? Hell yes. Because I would want everything about his arrest and interrogation to be done by the book. No 'walking on a technicality', no quetion about the validity of his statement.

In this case, he should have had a defender made available to him almost immediately. If, as you assert, the clock is ticking.....then the cops would want him to have access to his brief as soon as possible.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok we all agree miranda is a good thing,,, but MY point is should we allow people like Coeuy and the idaho monster be treated like the rest of us?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the real question is should something as trivial as this keep a confessed monster out of jail. I agree that reading them their rights is a good thing, but should it disallow everything thereafter, even if the truth can be verified seperately?

Nope.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
26 by BakerStreet
Monday, July 04, 2005


think the real question is should something as trivial as this keep a confessed monster out of jail. I agree that reading them their rights is a good thing, but should it disallow everything thereafter, even if the truth can be verified seperately?

Nope.


this is the doeuy case your talking about and I agree, I also think that fucker in Idaho the level 3 child rapist should have the shit pounded out of him to find out where the kid is, cruel? yes. do I care> No. not a bit