Skip to main content

View Diary: Boston Marathon bombing suspect answering FBI questions in writing (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why wouldn't you want what he says to be admissabl (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo

    Say he confesses now then takes it back? What's the harm in reading him his rights?

    We play fast and loose with the Constitution at our own peril.

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:59:01 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This narrow window (6+ / 0-)

      has to do with public safety concerns -- are there more bombs on timers somewhere out there?  Is anyone else part of this destructive plan?  This exception to Miranda dates back to 1980 in the Quarles case and has been revisited multiple times through the courts.

      He can still invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  He can still lawyer up.  What he is missing for 48 hours is the Miranda warning.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:09:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But what's the benefit? (0+ / 0-)

        He's more likely to not know his rights? Everyone who has ever watched an American police procedural show from late Dragnet on knows you have the right to remain silent, etc... and now you lose the value of anything he says for a trial later. It's just dumb.

        It's another example of America not living up to its self-image.

        "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

        by nightsweat on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:28:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The benefit is getting (6+ / 0-)

          public safety information before he shuts up or lawyers up.  There is a buttload of evidence out there that would not be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree," i.e. info outside the scope of public safety.  

          It isn't dumb.  It is perfectly legal having been tested many times through the court system.  

          " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

          by gchaucer2 on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:45:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he gets a lawyer... (0+ / 0-)

          ... he might well STFU.  That would be bad.  Get as much information as possible, who cares if it's admissible later?  They have enough non-testimonial evidence for various crimes that they don't need it.  

          •  Change the suspect and think that through again (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DSPS owl

            Would it still be OK if it were a more mundane criminal?

            "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

            by nightsweat on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 10:17:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              auapplemac

              It is always an option to not-Mirandize.  The only consequence is that whatever the subject says is not admissible.  That has always been the case.  It is usually the correct strategic option to Mirandize, but not always.

              •  But Mirandizing isn't some magic spell. (0+ / 0-)

                It doesn't grant the suspect rights. It informs him or her of rights they already have under the Constitution. If he was going to lawyer up, he'd lawyer up.

                Denying the suspect the Miranda warning just makes it easier for them to have evidence thrown out later.

                "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

                by nightsweat on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 10:34:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Who cares if he confesses? (0+ / 0-)

      He left behind enough evidence for his own personal museum of crime.  The only question is whether he'll get the needle or life in supermax.  A confession is worthless, and the government might well get less information if he lawyers up.  Not Mirandizing is perfectly legal and the correct strategic choice in this instance.  Again, the people likely can't use what he says in ap roceeding against him but who cares?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site