Boston Marathon Explosions
- Thread starter knapplc
- Start date
JJ Husker
Donor
Sorry Carl, I did not realize your post was focusing on "he deserves no rights". As much as I am inclined to agree with BRI's sentiments, I would have to say that even in this case we do have to afford some basic rights. We cannot have individuals determining guilt without due process. But then again, if the scumbag happened to get killed in the course of apprehending him, I sure wouldn't lose any sleep over it. The only problem I have in this specific case is with people who think there was no justification to forego his Miranda rights. I will let BRI explain his comments because it is not my job and so far he has been doing a much better job of it than I.
zoogs
New member
I think we can all empathize with those sentiments, but it seems to me they all assume guilt. Which is pretty likely, but there's a reason we have a process for determining who is guilty and who isn't. Even in this case we can't assume he's guilty before due process. Once that happens and it's established that he's guilty he might be deprived of all his rights, and indeed his life, liberty, and all that.
The Atlantic ran a great article covering all the misconceptions surrounding Miranda "rights": LINK
As Ebyl stated a few pages ago, Dzhokhar wasn't deprived of any rights; authorities are allowed and have been allowed to detain citizens without giving them the Miranda warning. If they do so, however, they aren't allowed to use any of his statements in the court case against him. In the case of the public safety exemption, again, due process is not circumvented, but the government is able to make a case for admitting pre-Miranda warning statements into court. There's no guarantee that they will make a strong enough case that it is accepted.
In this case the other evidence was likely strong enough that they weren't too worried about potentially losing some admissible evidence.
That said, how far that exception can go does get decided in cases like this and that's something worth watching. It's possible they will ask him a ton of stuff for some duration after he was brought into custody and still try to introduce that into court. We don't know that yet, but if that happens it is a legitimate concern.
The Atlantic ran a great article covering all the misconceptions surrounding Miranda "rights": LINK
As Ebyl stated a few pages ago, Dzhokhar wasn't deprived of any rights; authorities are allowed and have been allowed to detain citizens without giving them the Miranda warning. If they do so, however, they aren't allowed to use any of his statements in the court case against him. In the case of the public safety exemption, again, due process is not circumvented, but the government is able to make a case for admitting pre-Miranda warning statements into court. There's no guarantee that they will make a strong enough case that it is accepted.
In this case the other evidence was likely strong enough that they weren't too worried about potentially losing some admissible evidence.
That said, how far that exception can go does get decided in cases like this and that's something worth watching. It's possible they will ask him a ton of stuff for some duration after he was brought into custody and still try to introduce that into court. We don't know that yet, but if that happens it is a legitimate concern.
knapplc
Active member
"Dzhokhar wasn't deprived of any rights" under current laws, loosely defined, with a wink and a nod toward what is or isn't right, moral and just.
Waterboarding isn't torture either, and we only kill insurgents with our drone strikes.
Let's all take another step down that path, shall we? It gets easier the more we do it.
Waterboarding isn't torture either, and we only kill insurgents with our drone strikes.
Let's all take another step down that path, shall we? It gets easier the more we do it.
walksalone
New member
Geez, what happened to, lets be glad he's caught so that folks in Boston can regain some normalcy in their lives and thank the BPD for doing their jobs as best they could...
zoogs
New member
I'm confused what exactly you are getting at here, knapp...
We don't know what he was asked prior to (assuming he hasn't been read them yet) being Mirandized. We don't know what, if any, of that the government will attempt to submit to court.
If the government asked questions too broad in nature and the court allows the responses as evidence, then we've taken a step down that path. No?
This is not a case of an improper arrest or detainment. People are protected against self-incrimination by the Constitution and that is solely a courts issue. Authorities can ask anything of anyone before reading them their rights and they don't have to answer (what are we gonna do, waterboard them?
), they can ask for a lawyer and it won't be denied, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this, your general knowledge about this stuff is probably stronger than mine.
Not reading Miranda rights =/= forcing the detainee to answer questions.
For all we know, at this time, they haven't asked him anything more than "Are there any other bombs and accomplices?" and/or they won't use any of his responses to make the case against him.
walks, I don't think any of us aren't glad about that, but at the same time, constitution watchdogging is important. knapp is absolutely right that we should be careful and vigilant about this:
We don't know what he was asked prior to (assuming he hasn't been read them yet) being Mirandized. We don't know what, if any, of that the government will attempt to submit to court.
If the government asked questions too broad in nature and the court allows the responses as evidence, then we've taken a step down that path. No?
This is not a case of an improper arrest or detainment. People are protected against self-incrimination by the Constitution and that is solely a courts issue. Authorities can ask anything of anyone before reading them their rights and they don't have to answer (what are we gonna do, waterboard them?
), they can ask for a lawyer and it won't be denied, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this, your general knowledge about this stuff is probably stronger than mine.Not reading Miranda rights =/= forcing the detainee to answer questions.
For all we know, at this time, they haven't asked him anything more than "Are there any other bombs and accomplices?" and/or they won't use any of his responses to make the case against him.
walks, I don't think any of us aren't glad about that, but at the same time, constitution watchdogging is important. knapp is absolutely right that we should be careful and vigilant about this:
Last edited by a moderator:
walksalone
New member
Apparently there is great concern about this kid not being read his rights, then being waterboarded, then attacked by a drone, then possibly forced to sit through a "Sex in the City" marathon...I'm confused what exactly you are getting at here.
We don't know what he was asked prior to (assuming he hasn't been read them yet) being Mirandized. We don't know what, if any, of that the government will attempt to submit to court.
If the government asked questions too broad in nature and the court allows the responses as evidence, then we've taken a step down that path. No?
This is not a case of an improper arrest or detainment. People are protected against self-incrimination by the Constitution and that is solely a courts issue. Authorities can ask anything of anyone before reading them their rights and they don't have to answer (what are we gonna do, waterboard them?
Not reading Miranda rights =/= forcing the detainee to answer questions.
For all we know, at this time, they haven't asked him anything more than "Are there any other bombs and accomplices?" and/or they won't use any of his responses to make the case against him.
Notre Dame Joe
New member
Yes you are right about that. But what if they perpetually refused to Mirandize him so they could get information. Isn't it a violation of his rights not to let him have access to an attorney. I presume at some point they have to charge him and give him a free lawyer.
beanman
Banned
They have charged him. And he's been assigned a public defender.(Hopefully this guy -
"Federal agents at first questioned Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights, under an exception to the rule invoked when authorities believe there is an imminent public safety threat, a Justice Department official said over the weekend. But by the time of the hospital room proceeding, government sources said he had been read his rights, and Bowler reviewed those with him again Monday." http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1
Transcript of the hearing: http://www.cnn.com/i....html?hpt=hp_t1
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs
New member
I don't think denying him a lawyer was ever part of the equation. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Perpetually refusing to Mirandize him simply means nothing he says can get used in court (unless it's allowed by the public safety exemption, which I don't think extends as far as perpetual, at least not yet).
walksalone
New member
Or, maybe part of another reason they didn't "mirandize" him immediately, was the fact that they weren't sure he was going to live? I mean, being shot in the neck doesn't do much for your life expectancy...
Last edited by a moderator:
Notre Dame Joe
New member
They didn't Mirandize him because they did not need to. One even said they knew how many hours the public emergency exception was good for. I'm just curious if they simply did not then would he be given a lawyer? There would be a habeous corpus writ if he was left in jail perpetually but that could be a few weeks.
EbylHusker
Banned
Authorities are not going to provide you with a lawyer during questioning unless you ask for it. Why would they? You have the right to an attorney, but if you choose not to use it, that's your own business.
QMany
New member
Last edited by a moderator: