Wow.. No one with anything to say.. That is a first

I understand what you are saying and yes for most at the start its going to be like wizzing in to the wind.  Every little it is 

After all, look what come from MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Ernesto Miranda Convicted of robbery, kidnapping and rape because of the excepted methods and tactics used at the time. Appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court and lost again. When appealed to the US Supreme court he won. 

The out come of him not giving up resulted in a fundamental change in the law, The Miranda warning.

My point here is no matter how many times the status quo is up held every little bit helps and some day we will get our Miranda

Sergeant:

I agree with you but our predecessors forced Miranda on us by beating confessions out of suspects.  As usual the US Supreme Court went too far the other way in trying to remedy the problem. The pendelum has been  swinging the other way since the Reagan court appointees started relaxing the Miranda rules.  Actually it's not too bad to live with right now compared to the way it was. I came on the job in 1966, what great times, MIranda, Hippie culture, Viet Nam War, and Civil Rights movement. As a cop these were horriblwe times but I think a lot of good came out of it to imporve policing.   

Have a good day.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2006 at 1:16pm:


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.