Miranda Rights Gone
Supreme Court Building
You do not have the right to remain silent. This was the decision handed down by the court last week. The Miranda “right to remain silent” is no protection against self incrimination. For those who are completely unaware of how those rights were applied in every day life, I shall go over them. The court ruled you have to “verbally” invoke those rights first. This overturns Miranda completely in two way.
- Someone who speaks, are automatically assumed to have waived all legal rights to remain silent
- it is assumed you have waived your rights if you do not speak
- see point #1
- rinse repeat
In other words, Miranda is completely and utterly gone. To further hit home this incredible waiving of rights, police have no obligation to stop questioning you, regardless of what you say.
The Miranda warning stems from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The basic holding of the Court was that the prosecution may not use statements made by a subject stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See Miranda.
Police Car
For those who are skeptical of how egregious [bad] this is, let us go over how the right was put in practical terms.
In practical terms, you were read your rights and you then signed a paper with the rights on them, indicating that you completely heard, read and understood those rights.
This decision now completely throws out all practical implications of Miranda. You do not need Miranda warnings spoken to you. You do not get to sign a document indicating you understand your constitutional right. Police can now interrogate you under the full assumption that you waive your right.
“Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “Suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”
Conclusion
Let me see if I can understand the majority’s reasoning: The constitutionally enumerates rights given to us by God; these enumerated rights exist outside of the law, and are just written into the constitution to state that we recognize these rights and will not touch, nor breach them; the Miranda warning is simply a notification of those God given rights, to make absolutely sure people are already aware of those rights; but those rights are now taken away.
The entire impetus of the enumerated rights of the constitution is that they exist outside of any laws written down. Concordantly the presence or absence of the Miranda warning is immaterial to your God given right to remain silent. Therefore there is no constitutional NEED to invoke a right you already have, given by the almighty creator, which man cannot abridge.
This was the very heart of why the rights were written down in the constitution, to stop a government that would come into your house, ransack it, question / torture you and throw you in jail just because they are sovereign.
Our constitutional rights supersede any claim of sovereignty the government claims to have over us.
This decision is wrong at the very core. How could 5 men in good conscious deliver such a heinous ruling. It is not even up for interpretation that a man need not assert their rights. The right was asserted 200 years ago.
