SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Kings County (Seattle) to "simplify" Miranda rights for youthful offenders
Page 1 2 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Kings County (Seattle) to "simplify" Miranda rights for youthful offenders Login/Join 
The Main Thing Is
Not To Get Excited
Picture of wishfull thinker
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Hey now, Seattle didn't get to where it's at by being accountable or using reason.


2 true. I frequently go down to the edge of the sound, gaze across at Seattle and weep.


_______________________

 
Posts: 5129 | Location: Washington | Registered: November 06, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by barndg00:
Honestly, I'm ok with this. Our system is innocent till proven guilty, and they do have these rights. This is merely an attempt to be certain that they understand their rights. They are not being given anything new, just explaination of what they already have.


Exactly. If we are real conservatives, that means we want the state to leave us the hell alone. By extension, that means that the state has to play by the rules. Scrupulously so.

The government should have to afford us our rights to the letter, and not obscure their meaning behind terms that the person they are dealing with cannot understand.

I will err in favor of protecting the individual against the state every single damn time.

But if this gives you any angst, remember Ron White's joke: "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability," which is true of many defendants.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 44270 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Be Careful What You Wish For...
Picture of Monk
posted Hide Post
King County, cops don't quit
Even when a young brotha legit.


____________________________________________________________

Georgeair: "...looking around my house this morning, it's not easily defended for long by two people in the event of real anarchy. The entryways might be slick for the latecomers though...."
 
Posts: 11680 | Location: Hoisting the colors in a strange land | Registered: February 09, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:
Seriously.... How hard is original version to understand?


I typed a couple of different versions in Word and ran the grammer check. It assigned Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels of 7 to 10. So if you are talking about someone 14 years old or less, who is already nervous, then I could see them being confused.

I may be in a negative state of mind, but I have been watching real life crime shows, and in a couple of the episodes the cops talk about how they outright lied to some of the suspects, who often turned out to be innocent, before they finally zeroed in on the right guy.

My son also got stopped for speeding and the cop kept telling him he could smell marijuana and asking to search the car and that he would call in a dog if he had to. My son kept refusing (as I had taught him) and the cop finally gave him his speeding ticket and sent him on his way.

Seeing stuff like this, I can't get too on board with criticizing something to help ensure that a suspect knows his rights.


------------------------------
"They who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"So this is how liberty dies; with thunderous applause."
- Senator Amidala (Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith)
 
Posts: 908 | Location: Southwest Ohio | Registered: October 07, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
Okay, let me kick this up a notch. Should a minor be questioned without a parent or guardian present, and should it not be the parent or guardian's decision whether to allow questioning?
 
Posts: 17266 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
Okay, let me kick this up a notch. Should a minor be questioned without a parent or guardian present, and should it not be the parent or guardian's decision whether to allow questioning?


I cannot speak for Seattle, but in my state juvenile rights are bifurcated: one set of rules for children under sixteen and another for sixteen/seventeen year olds. Sixteen and seventeen year olds may waive on their own, younger kids must have their parent approve. Note that this only applies to custodial interrogation and non-custodials are different.
 
Posts: 2015 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
Exactly. If we are real conservatives, that means we want the state to leave us the hell alone. By extension, that means that the state has to play by the rules. Scrupulously so.

The government should have to afford us our rights to the letter, and not obscure their meaning behind terms that the person they are dealing with cannot understand.

I will err in favor of protecting the individual against the state every single damn time.

But if this gives you any angst, remember Ron White's joke: "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability," which is true of many defendants.


I agree with Justice White's dissent...Miranda was a 5-4 decision. The Court wrote a new procedural rule where there was nothing in the Constitution granting them that right - classic legislating from the bench.

I believe in individual responsibility. If you are not interested or engaged enough to even know what your rights are that's on you - not the state.

quote:
Justice Byron White took issue with the court announcing a new constitutional right when it had no "factual and textual bases" in the Constitution or previous opinions of the Court for the rule announced in the opinion. He stated: "The proposition that the privilege against self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment." Nor did Justice White believe it had any basis in English common law.

White further warned of the dire consequences of the majority opinion:

I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.

In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 26059 | Location: TN/KY | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
You cannot wave rights, unless you wave them goodbye.

You can, however, either waive or invoke them.
 
Posts: 13441 | Location: Lexington, KY | Registered: October 15, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Corgis Rock
Picture of Icabod
posted Hide Post
quote:
According to the release, researchers studying adolescent brain science concluded that juveniles have less judgment and experience to avoid choices that could have a negative outcome.


Yea, about this. Has anyone suggested raising the age to get a driver's license?



“The best teacher is not the one who knows most but the one who is most capable of reducing knowledge to that simple compound of the obvious and wonderful.”
― H.L. Mencken
 
Posts: 4709 | Location: Outside Seattle | Registered: November 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posting without pants
Picture of KevinCW
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
Exactly. If we are real conservatives, that means we want the state to leave us the hell alone. By extension, that means that the state has to play by the rules. Scrupulously so.

The government should have to afford us our rights to the letter, and not obscure their meaning behind terms that the person they are dealing with cannot understand.

I will err in favor of protecting the individual against the state every single damn time.

But if this gives you any angst, remember Ron White's joke: "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability," which is true of many defendants.


I agree with Justice White's dissent...Miranda was a 5-4 decision. The Court wrote a new procedural rule where there was nothing in the Constitution granting them that right - classic legislating from the bench.

I believe in individual responsibility. If you are not interested or engaged enough to even know what your rights are that's on you - not the state.

quote:
Justice Byron White took issue with the court announcing a new constitutional right when it had no "factual and textual bases" in the Constitution or previous opinions of the Court for the rule announced in the opinion. He stated: "The proposition that the privilege against self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment." Nor did Justice White believe it had any basis in English common law.

White further warned of the dire consequences of the majority opinion:

I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.

In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity.


I'm a bit torn on this.

Most of me says that it is YOUR duty, to become an informed citizen. If you value your rights, and your citizenship YOU SHOULD want to be, and basically FEEL OBLIGATED to educate yourself as to what your rights are. I'm honestly wondering why it was decided it was the police's responsibility to educate you to your own rights.

Obviously, I'm not advocating for trickery or end arounds on such rights... just not certain why someone (or at least 5/9ths of a panel) decided it was the officer's responsibility to educate you on what you SHOULD already know...

On the flip side, I do believe in the rule of law. I also understand how complicated our system of law is. And sadly, each year we seem to dumb down our schools, and our expectations of youth in order to cater to the lowest common denominator.





Strive to live your life so when you wake up in the morning and your feet hit the floor, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up."
 
Posts: 31846 | Location: St. Louis MO | Registered: February 15, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Quiet Man
posted Hide Post
Anything that follows is personal opinion and does not reflect the opinions, practices, policies, or procedures of any agency I may or may not be affiliated with.

When I became an investigator I was curious about this topic. I ran a test for awhile. Before I'd start my interview, I'd ask "have you ever been arrested or read your rights before?" If they said no, I'd ask, "have you ever watched a TV show where somebody was read their rights?" I've never had someone answer no to that. "Well, that is the part we are at now. Before I can talk to you about this case I have to make sure you understand your rights. Can you explain them to me in your own words?" The only one that people tended to leave out is that once they start answering questions they can stop at any time.

After that I would break out the form, have them read the form aloud to me, and initial after each individual line that they understand. AFTER THAT there is a paragraph they read aloud, confirming that they understand their rights, that no force or coercion (which I define for them as any direct or indirect threat, promise, or trickery) has been used against them, that their statement is voluntary, and that they can stop at any time and/or request a lawyer.

If after all that, they still want to talk to me without a lawyer, they sign and date the form. We then conduct the interview.

When it is time for the formal statement that gets typed up and signed
the first part of the statement is again me reading the Miranda warnings. The first question is Do you still understand these rights? followed by With these rights in mind do you still wish to give a statement at this time?

As long as I've been doing this I've only had one person ever claim to not understand the Miranda Warning, and I'm 99% sure he was just being a pain. Better than 70% of the folk I asked could explain the Miranda warning from memory with complete accuracy prior to actually seeing the form. Of the ones that couldn't almost all of them knew every part of it except that they could halt questioning.

When it comes to juveniles, I stop them after every line of the form and repeat what it says in simple plain English, ask if they understand, and get them to initial the spot when they say yes. At the end of the form I get them to AGAIN explain their rights to me in their own words.

These aren't complicated legal concepts. Unless someone has a SEVERE developmental issue I would be hard pressed to believe that they can't understand the Advice of Rights form after the form is read and explained. With juveniles we always try to have a parent or guardian in the room as an observer as well.

It's nothing like TV. Nothing. The closest thing I've seen on TV is The First 48, and those are very unique interviews and are edited for time, content, and dramatic effect before being aired. That 4 hour interview gets condensed down to 5 or 6 2 minute blocks of the juicy bits.

Because of the nature of my investigations, if you are in my interview room, you are already under arrest. You are most likely going to get charged. I've discovered the best technique FOR ME is to be upfront and honest about that. This is your chance to explain your side of what happened. Maybe it totally defeats the Victim's claims (had a perfect example the other day when a suspect had video that directly contradicted something the Victim claimed). Maybe it mitigates the event. Maybe it was just an accident that can be explained. If you want to talk to me, we'll talk. I won't lie to you, in return you won't lie to me. I don't offer sympathy, but I offer understanding. A shockingly large number of people then walk me through what happened and are generally fairly honest about it. It's the most amazing thing when someone signs a statement that can potentially put them in jail for the next 20 years or so, knows exactly what they are doing, and then shakes your hand and says "thank you" just because you were decent and honest with them and treated them like a human being even when the crime they just committed might cause one to question the level of their humanity.

When I first got promoted I thought I would hate this part of the job. The more I do it, the more I enjoy it. There are often times that I would MUCH rather handle the interview of the suspect than that of the victim. But I'm rambling and drifting further and further afield. Apologies.
 
Posts: 1412 | Registered: November 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
quarter MOA visionary
Picture of smschulz
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by barndg00:
Honestly, I'm ok with this. Our system is innocent till proven guilty, and they do have these rights. This is merely an attempt to be certain that they understand their rights. They are not being given anything new, just explaination of what they already have.


I have no problem either.

Never been in the situation personally but from what I gather ~ in the beginnings there can be a quite a bit of confusion that leads to intimidation with the pressure to talk/confess/etc.
While I truly do love and respect what LE does I never quite understood why police can legally lie and trick you to say things but you must only speak the truth?
So why not be clear up front with your rights especially for the easily impressionable and intimidated youth?
 
Posts: 14114 | Location: Houston, TX | Registered: June 11, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
I love that people are crooning on what a great idea this is. That people are innocent until proven guilty and whatnot. And they completely gloss over this line-

quote:
The King County Sheriff's Office will give minors simplified Miranda rights as part of an effort to help reduce youth incarceration, according to a news release


It has zero to do with guilt or innocence. Or all the mumbo jumbo science bullshit they quoted. It sounds really feel good, but it keeps them from having to charge them, and then lodge them. Saving money for the state is what it is all about. Hell with the victim of the crime the JV committed. They probably had it coming anyways by having a nice car, or valuables in their home, and they can afford to have their lives turned upside down.

Oh, have I mentioned that an empowered JV offender eventually becomes an adult offender?

It's a win/win for everyone but the victims. They need to shut up and go back to work instead of worrying about trivial little things like justice.

This is exactly how I see it; the location isn't exactly a shocker either.




Proudly deplorable
 
Posts: 7633 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
At first I was kind of bent about this but in reality, it is not that much of stretch and I thought it would happen years earlier.

Juvies aren't the only ones who don't understand Miranda, most of the adults cannot either.

I have always watered it down to a degree for everyone to understand so at a later trial date, the defense cannot come back and say my client "no understand what de man wiz sayin."

BUT TO BE fair I could give two craps about the toads.

I say this because it is the victim who always gets screwed..
 
Posts: 602 | Location: Leaving Richmond and heading to NC | Registered: March 03, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of pulicords
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
Exactly. If we are real conservatives, that means we want the state to leave us the hell alone. By extension, that means that the state has to play by the rules. Scrupulously so.

The government should have to afford us our rights to the letter, and not obscure their meaning behind terms that the person they are dealing with cannot understand.

I will err in favor of protecting the individual against the state every single damn time.

But if this gives you any angst, remember Ron White's joke: "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability," which is true of many defendants.


I agree with Justice White's dissent...Miranda was a 5-4 decision. The Court wrote a new procedural rule where there was nothing in the Constitution granting them that right - classic legislating from the bench.

I believe in individual responsibility. If you are not interested or engaged enough to even know what your rights are that's on you - not the state.

quote:
Justice Byron White took issue with the court announcing a new constitutional right when it had no "factual and textual bases" in the Constitution or previous opinions of the Court for the rule announced in the opinion. He stated: "The proposition that the privilege against self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment." Nor did Justice White believe it had any basis in English common law.

White further warned of the dire consequences of the majority opinion:

I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.

In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity.


Without bringing up all the case law to prove the point; the People have the burden of proving an admission(s) of guilt is obtained voluntarily and conforms to the reasoning behind the 5th Amendment protections' existence. The court provided a "prophylactic" means of showing the admissions meet these standards through "Miranda". The warnings aren't such a big deal, when one considers about 80-90% of people or more are willing to waive them, including attorneys (in my experience).

There are many examples of admissions of guilt which are admissible as evidence even though the "Miranda" warning aren't provided and even if they are, there isn't an expressed waiver obtained by the person being questioned. When you're dealing with immature children or adults that have low IQs, learning disabilities, physical or mental disabilities, or issues of intoxication, it behooves you as a peace officer to ensure that the subjects understand their constitutional rights, so important admissions can be admitted as evidence.

Admissions provide context to physical and circumstantial evidence. No matter what kind of new wazoo scientific evidence comes along to show that someone may have committed an act, the "trier of fact" (judge and jury) will want to know WHY they committed the offense. An attorney can collaborate with a client in all kinds of ways to spin this information and that's why cops should always have the tool of obtaining uncontaminated admissions of guilt from suspects that can willingly, knowingly, and intelligently waive their rights.


"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
 
Posts: 8262 | Location: So CA | Registered: June 13, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by pulicords:
Without bringing up all the case law to prove the point; the People have the burden of proving an admission(s) of guilt is obtained voluntarily and conforms to the reasoning behind the 5th Amendment protections' existence. The court provided a "prophylactic" means of showing the admissions meet the standards.

There are many examples of admissions of guilt which are admissible as evidence even though the "Miranda" warning aren't provided and even if they are, there isn't an expressed waiver obtained by the person being questioned. When you're dealing with immature children or adults that have low IQs, learning disabilities, physical or mental disabilities, or issues of intoxication, it behooves you as a peace officer to ensure that the subjects understand their constitutional rights, so important admissions can be admitted as evidence. Admissions provide context to physical and circumstantial evidence. No matter what kind of new wazoo scientific evidence comes along to show that someone may have committed an act, the "trier of fact" (judge and jury) will want to know


To elaborate - I have no problem with LEO's having to give this warning, but it should not have come from the courts. The legislature should have passed a law requiring it. It is not the role of the court to legislate this from the bench. Like Roe v Wade, the reasoning behind the decision was just wrong - there is nothing in the constitution about this, thus nothing for SCOTUS to rule on.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 26059 | Location: TN/KY | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of pulicords
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
quote:
Originally posted by pulicords:
Without bringing up all the case law to prove the point; the People have the burden of proving an admission(s) of guilt is obtained voluntarily and conforms to the reasoning behind the 5th Amendment protections' existence. The court provided a "prophylactic" means of showing the admissions meet the standards.

There are many examples of admissions of guilt which are admissible as evidence even though the "Miranda" warning aren't provided and even if they are, there isn't an expressed waiver obtained by the person being questioned. When you're dealing with immature children or adults that have low IQs, learning disabilities, physical or mental disabilities, or issues of intoxication, it behooves you as a peace officer to ensure that the subjects understand their constitutional rights, so important admissions can be admitted as evidence. Admissions provide context to physical and circumstantial evidence. No matter what kind of new wazoo scientific evidence comes along to show that someone may have committed an act, the "trier of fact" (judge and jury) will want to know


To elaborate - I have no problem with LEO's having to give this warning, but it should not have come from the courts. The legislature should have passed a law requiring it. It is not the role of the court to legislate this from the bench. Like Roe v Wade, the reasoning behind the decision was just wrong - there is nothing in the constitution about this, thus nothing for SCOTUS to rule on.


FWIW: The court was just continuing what previous court decisions had laid the foundation for: To prove admissions against one's own self interest are reliable, they must be shown to have been obtained without an excessive degree of coercion (ie: such things as overt threats and physical abuse/torture). The purpose behind the 5th Amendment protection against forced testimony by the accused was to address the lack of credibility of confession evidence that was provided by someone placed on "the rack" or subjected to other enhanced means of interrogation commonly used during the 1700's and earlier. The founding fathers weren't prohibiting such procedures out of merely a sense of humanity, they (correctly) recognized that an unrestricted government could and did physically force innocent persons to admit to crimes they did not commit. Our Constitution set forth an exclusionary rule as its very basis for determining how much an admission against ones' own self-interest could be trusted. SCOTUS was right and the "Miranda" rule's impact was far less onerous than initially feared by police officers, prosecutors, and citizens who didn't understand it. Over the years since, the case law has clarified a lot of that misunderstanding. So much so that many lawyers now complain "Miranda" is worthless. Unlike many of these confessions experts, I disagree and don't see complying with it as either rocket science or brain surgery.

Police officers need to be educated and need to understand what their responsibilities are when it comes to getting reliable admissions of guilt, that aren't going to be excluded as evidence, but they can do it. The alternatives carry problems of their own (i.e. doing away with the "Double Jeopardy" prohibition), and I think we have pretty good system as a whole.


"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
 
Posts: 8262 | Location: So CA | Registered: June 13, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Kings County (Seattle) to "simplify" Miranda rights for youthful offenders

© SIGforum 2017