Comment on He took it literally
mkwt@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Funnily enough, the supreme court ruled that you cannot invoke your right to remain silent by remaining silent. You have to actually say something about “I want a lawyer.”
Comment on He took it literally
mkwt@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Funnily enough, the supreme court ruled that you cannot invoke your right to remain silent by remaining silent. You have to actually say something about “I want a lawyer.”
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 5 weeks ago
Why the fuck do you have to invoke it at all? It’s a right. They should all be invoked by default.
moody@lemmings.world 5 weeks ago
Because they wanted to prosecute a guy who used that right, and they decided it needed to be reinterpreted to suit their desires.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
The (obviously flawed) reasoning the supreme Court used is that it’s the same as invoking the right to legal counsel: we tend to accept that you need to ask for a lawyer, they don’t just get you one. Likewise, if you want them to stop asking you questions you need to say so.
Considering the right isn’t the “right to remain silent” we nickname it, but No person shall be … compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it’s a bit preposterous. Like saying it was a legal warrantless search because you never said “stop”, you just locked the doors, tried to keep them out, and tried to keep them out of certain areas.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 5 weeks ago
Seems pretty clear to me. Not a nickname. All silence after that point is perfectly warranted and should not be held against them. They can ask all the questions they want but they’re not entitled to answers.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Where do those words come from? Are they written into law? The wording is often policy, not law.
The Miranda warning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and doesn’t need to be read exactly because it’s a description of your fifth amendment rights, amongst others.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
It’s not an exaggeration to say that you need to explicitly invoke the fifth to have its protections.
The reason there’s a disconnect between what it seems like the warning is saying and the protections you actually have is because they’ve been rolling back the protections for years.
Did you know that the courts decided that the Miranda warning doesn’t need to fully explain your rights?