LogFAQs > #899938946

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 169: Check Your (Attorney-Client) Privilege
Eddv 04/19/18 1:29:51 PM #349:	Since were so obsessed with the 5th Amendment right now lets talk about Miranda v Arizona So Ernesto Miranda was basically a dirtbag. Career criminal arrested on charges of kidnapping and rape and quickly signed a confession. He was never informed of his right to counsel and the case against him was entirely circumstantial. Legal aid groups fought hard to try and establish the validity of your right to avoid self incrimination and your right to counsel - both of which prior to the late 1950s had absolutely no strength in the accepted jurisprudence. Miranda took his appeal to the supreme court and as we all know won. It was a HOTLY contested 5-4 ruling with Clarks dissent and Warrens majority opinion pretty ironcladly guaranteeing both the right to avoid self incrimination and the right to counsel in criminal matters. Mirandas case was retried and without the confession police were able to track down a witness and Miranda was convicted anyway. Almost immediately, authorities began trying to find ways to weaken Miranda but the police unions, fearful of lawsuits against its members, came up with the Miranda cards wr all know and love today. Nixon actually made his re-debut in the public eye after his embarassing loss in the California Governors race railing against this and the "undue inefficiency and burden" this places on police officers "just doing their jobs" . Sound familiar? Southern Democrats also HATED this decision and many southern states passed laws designed to weaken Miranda and actually snuck an amendment making it so Miranda didn't apply in federal cases. It took a good long while but most of those laws were stricken from the books after being countermanded by the supreme court. Miranda is still under constant assault by local police trying to find more and more acceptable reasons not to have to read Miranda. So moral of the story? Even the most 'ironclad' of our criminal protections are weaker than you think and require constant vigilance. The existence of a constitutional amendment does not guarantee the enforcement of said amendment without legal challenges constantly affirming those rights. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg <cite>Eddv posted [p:899938946] in Politics C... [t:76523324]...</cite> <quote>Since were so obsessed with the 5th Amendment right now lets talk about Miranda v Arizona So Ernesto Miranda was basically a dirtbag. Career criminal arrested on charges of kidnapping and rape and quickly signed a confession. He was never informed of his right to counsel and the case against him was entirely circumstantial. Legal aid groups fought hard to try and establish the validity of your right to avoid self incrimination and your right to counsel - both of which prior to the late 1950s had absolutely no strength in the accepted jurisprudence. Miranda took his appeal to the supreme court and as we all know won. It was a HOTLY contested 5-4 ruling with Clarks dissent and Warrens majority opinion pretty ironcladly guaranteeing both the right to avoid self incrimination and the right to counsel in criminal matters. Mirandas case was retried and without the confession police were able to track down a witness and Miranda was convicted anyway. Almost immediately, authorities began trying to find ways to weaken Miranda but the police unions, fearful of lawsuits against its members, came up with the Miranda cards wr all know and love today. Nixon actually made his re-debut in the public eye after his embarassing loss in the California Governors race railing against this and the "undue inefficiency and burden" this places on police officers "just doing their jobs" . Sound familiar? Southern Democrats also HATED this decision and many southern states passed laws designed to weaken Miranda and actually snuck an amendment making it so Miranda didn't apply in federal cases. It took a good long while but most of those laws were stricken from the books after being countermanded by the supreme court. Miranda is still under constant assault by local police trying to find more and more acceptable reasons not to have to read Miranda. So moral of the story? Even the most 'ironclad' of our criminal protections are weaker than you think and require constant vigilance. The existence of a constitutional amendment does not guarantee the enforcement of said amendment without legal challenges constantly affirming those rights. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason http://i.imgur.com/chXIw06.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1