Sergeant1107 wrote on Aug 11
th, 2006 at 1:16pm:
Not to go off on a tangent, but... I think the Miranda decision was terrible. It essentially relieves a person of the very basic responsibility to be familiar with the laws in their own country.
I lived in a well known Middle East country for an extended period. Their Miranda warning is more like, "you have the right to scream when we beat you senseless to get a confession", (or just for the heck of it)... As such, I see Miranda very differently, more of putting restraints on some zealots who want or need to find a particular answer regardless of facts.
Miranda (and the entire process that follows) might make police have to work a little bit harder and establish and verify some facts, something a confession in and of itself (Mark Karr?) does not, and systematically doctored evidence (Dallas Police narcotics unit?) ultimately does not.
Their Miranda approach became very clear after the head of their national police force told me very proudly, "We can get a confession out of anyone". In one very high profile instance a few months later, they beat and televised confessions of 4 political agitators for a bombing. Most outside agencies (including the FBI and other agencies who investigated), were confident that the 4 were not involved. Their execution followed quickly, and the real facts were never known to the public. I had friends in the building when it was bombed, and their version was in start contrast to the official version, which left out very material facts for political convienience. Officially, the 'bad guys' were gone, and the country claimed to have solved the problem. 7 months later, another related bombing killed more.
Miranda may be a little bit more work, but more than that it helped set up a process in this country that at least tends to arrive at facts and truth in less political environment than in many other countries.
Just my 7 halala worth.