Should we get rid of Miranda process?

T

TorontoTrader2

For those who do not know :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

(It's what happens as you are arrested).

The Bush administration has successfully argued that the Geneva Convention, which our forefathers fought for, no longer applies.

Things are different now! You can't expect the troops to fight the War on Terror with one hand tied behind their backs, as the Left and Our Enemies would so desire.

But what about the police?

If they arrest a scumbag, he gets a free $100/hour lawyer, takes up a $200/hour judge's time, the court reporter's time, jail security and transport and food and medical care, and so on. You could say that up to $500/hr is spent on some scumbags, who will only milk the system.

How about you remove all of that socialist waste process, and let the police handle the interrogations and process. The police are in the best position to do this.

The police, once they have obtained a confession, will hand the criminal over to the court for swift sentencing.

We must get tough on crime! Sure, you will hear the usual shrill whining from the Left and the ACLU. But the next time a cop is shot becuase he was too worried about 'rights', you will have his blood on your hands! Support our police, give them the tools they need.

So how about it, bush supporters, do you support this idea?
 
Our Forefathers "fought " for the Geneva Conventions? Where do you get this stuff? They were treaties enterd into after WW II, not part of our Constitution or something Moses brought down from the mountaintop.

Should terrorists who have information regarding terrorist attacks, hostages, etc be treated as domestic criminal detainees or should we be able under carefully controlled circumstances to subject them to coercive interrogations? I would say the vast majority of american citizens would say the latter. I know they would if they or their own family members would be saved by screwing information out of a terrorist. Let's not forget, these are people who cut the heads off innocent hostages for the amusement of you and your wannabe jihadists on al jazeera.

As for Miranda, it is not supported by language in the Constitution and was another of the inventions of the Warren Court. No telling how many people have been killed ro subjected to violent crimes by criminals who weasled out of conviction because of it. Not a big concern for rich liberal lawyers, judges and politicians living in secure gated communities with private security but a big concern for the rest of us.

Like the false choice between amnesty and expelling 12 million illegals, the choice between Miranda and beating confessions out of suspects obscures the wide range of options in between. I think interrogations should be taped, and cops should be liable for using excessive force. Realistically, Miranda has become so embedded that it will not be overturned, but I think a solid case can be made that inadvertent mistakes or minor errors in applying it should not allow suspects to get out of corroborated confessions. Criminal justice should be about protecting the public, not a game of gotcha for lawyers.
 
Quote from TorontoTrader2:

So you support the ACLU's position on this?

How long have you been a socialist?
More...

What did I write that could possibly lead you to that conclusion? I said Miranda was an invented right that is not in the Constitution. It has been part of criminal procedure for a long time however, so the Supreme Court will be reluctant to overturn it.
 
Regarding Geneva Con - I believe AAA cleared up the forefathers thing, so enough about THAT foolishness.

But on a serious note, who have we fought, or that we could ever conceive of ever fighting, can you think of that would respect the GC? No one. We would treat POW respectfully as a matter of respect for ourselves, not because of a treaty. The charges that Bush, etc have treated POW's in the WOT is ridiculous. I would hardly call good meals, religious respect, etc at Guantanomo as being treated unfairly.

Miranda - One of the best ways of being sure that a suspect is guilty is a confession. Read the Miranda rights. If the person talks without a lawyer present, why should that testimony be thrown out? C'mon, it's not like anyone is gonna confess to a murder or robbery they didn't commit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top