Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

3. This would apply to anyone already in custody. Including those not yet tried or convicted

Reply to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:23 AM

Feb 2012

or necessarily even arraigned.

You'd think the cops, doing this day in and day out, would understand the procedure. You'd also think the Court would recognize their own standards.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court says prison inmates don�t have to be read rights in different investigations [View all] morningfog Feb 2012 OP

The Roberts court is fast becoming one of the worst courts in history. Justice wanted Feb 2012 #1

I can't believe Kagan went along with this holding. morningfog Feb 2012 #4

I did start a thread asking what is going on with Kagan. I thought she was a progressive. Justice wanted Feb 2012 #5

I have liked her writing and the majorities and dissents of hers morningfog Feb 2012 #13

You'd think after being arrested, tried and convicted they'd already have a firm grasp of the idea. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #2

This would apply to anyone already in custody. Including those not yet tried or convicted morningfog Feb 2012 #3

If you've been Mirandized for Crime A then confress to Crime B Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #6

I think the point is, once you are convicted of a crime, you lose certain rights. stevenleser Feb 2012 #8

You do, but there are many people in prison who have not be morningfog Feb 2012 #11

All the people in prison have been convicted. You are confusing prison with jail. nt stevenleser Feb 2012 #25

That is true for the most part. morningfog Feb 2012 #27

No doubt, by the very nature of the act of incarceration. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #14

That is not how Miranda has been applied. morningfog Feb 2012 #9

But the knowledge of your 5A rights doesn't evaporate out of your head. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #12

That has not been and should not be the standard. morningfog Feb 2012 #15

When people are sworn-in for giving testimony at a trial Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #16

Witnesses at trial are not at risk of self-incrimination, morningfog Feb 2012 #17

Even if they were the defendant a single swearing-in is still sufficient. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #18

And confessions absent Miranda are per se coercive. morningfog Feb 2012 #19

Apples v Oranges Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #24

This may surprise you, but prisoners are still protected by morningfog Feb 2012 #26

I'm as liberal as you can get BUT, dballance Feb 2012 #7

It isn't so easy or black-and-white. morningfog Feb 2012 #10

I don't think this ruling changes much. former9thward Feb 2012 #20

There are strict standards on what is admissible in those cases. morningfog Feb 2012 #21

why not do away with miranda entirely? frylock Feb 2012 #22

I dont agree. nt stevenleser Feb 2012 #23

the greatest mystery to me in American culture flexnor Feb 2012 #28

It is plain, and important. Which is why everyone should get it. morningfog Feb 2012 #29

Must see youtube on miranda warning by law professor flexnor Feb 2012 #30