Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

As long as folks in the judicial system are rewarded for successful apprehensions and prosecutions, corners will be cut by individuals. No surprise there. But such individual actions are not a systemic issue. Miranda and other broad rules are meant to address systemic problems and have the side benefit of occasionally helping with individual transgressions, but that's what it's designed to address.

[GE Morton]

One of my daughter's friends once complained to me that a cop stopped him and did not read him his rights while searching his car and looking for drugs. He was very angry at being so abused and denied his rights (He was 16). I smiled at him and explained that he didn't have any rights. He argued that he had Miranda rights. I explained that Miranda rights are civil rights, so they only apply after a person has reached the age of majority. Before that you have about the same rights as a dog -- to be fed, educated, housed, provided with medical care when needed, etc.

That is incorrect. Miranda rights are the same for juveniles as for adults. Moreover, under federal law and in most States police are required, in addition to the Miranda warning, to give the juvenile an opportunity to contacts his parents (or contact them themselves) and to suspend questioning until a parent is present.

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/fil ... rights.pdf

http://www.mirandawarning.org/applicationofmirandarightswithminors.html

[Alias]

Doesn't help if you don't speak English, either, or get scared and make the wrong move unintentionally.
American cops are so paranoid and over-stretched and hopped-up on coffee (if you're lucky, that's all they're on), they'll shoot shadows, dogs and little kids and try to close a case the quickest way they can, which is usually coerced confession. The forensic labs are underfunded, understaffed and ill-equipped; continuity and integrity of physical evidence is questionable at best; some states have worse human rights records than China.
Most Americans don't want to know how much trouble their legal system is in - any more than they want to know how threadbare their education and health care and social services are.
But, hey, it's all cool, so long as the rich get tax breaks...

[Gee]

As long as folks in the judicial system are rewarded for successful apprehensions and prosecutions, corners will be cut by individuals. No surprise there. But such individual actions are not a systemic issue. Miranda and other broad rules are meant to address systemic problems and have the side benefit of occasionally helping with individual transgressions, but that's what it's designed to address.

I can agree with most of what you stated, but I really do think that we have systemic problems in the US police forces. Back when I was a kid, I remember thinking that the police were there to protect me. I believed that I could go to them if I needed help. That is no longer the case.

One day when I was in my early 20's, I got off the afternoon shift, had gone home to change, and then gone to my friend's wedding reception in the hopes of seeing her before it was over. I got there in time to see her Dad sweeping up the floor -- I had missed the reception. As I drove back home, I crossed a railroad track that was at a diagonal across a traffic intersection. My car immediately started to wildly fishtail until I brought it to a stop off the side of the road. I was shaking like a leaf when the police pulled up and ask me what I thought I was doing. I stated that I didn't know, but was going to find out. I got out of my car and walked around it. I found that one front tire was pointed forward as it should, but the other front tire was pointed sideways.

The policeman used his flashlight and explained that I had busted a tie rod while crossing the railroad track. Obviously, I could not drive the car. Since is was late at night on a rather desolate road, I asked the police if they could take me to a 24 hour restaurant down the road where I could call for help. (No cell phones back then.) The policeman stated that they were not a taxi service, then got in his car and left. So I walked in the dark, in high heels, for about a mile to a restaurant. That was when I first started to notice a change in the local police.

The first thing I realized was that it no longer said "To Protect and Serve" down the side of the police cars. That had been removed. Talking to police helped me to understand that their mission had changed; they were no longer required to "protect and serve", they were now required to "enforce the law". Turning from protectors into enforcers may not seem like a big difference, but it is a day and night difference to the people they deal with. Think about the police dealing with George Floyd, were they trying to "protect" or were they trying to "enforce" something.

Some of the cities around here still have "to protect and serve" on the side of their police cars -- some don't -- mostly the poorer cities don't. This tells me that we are talking about policies initiated in different cities, which tells me that this is systemic. The police get the blame for these policy shifts, but I am not sure they have much power over policies. I am not sure who does.

This is only one example of the systemic changes that are corrupting our police force and the relationship between the police and the citizens. Computers and poor maintenance of police computer files also plays a systemic role.

Gee

[Gee]

One of my daughter's friends once complained to me that a cop stopped him and did not read him his rights while searching his car and looking for drugs. He was very angry at being so abused and denied his rights (He was 16). I smiled at him and explained that he didn't have any rights. He argued that he had Miranda rights. I explained that Miranda rights are civil rights, so they only apply after a person has reached the age of majority. Before that you have about the same rights as a dog -- to be fed, educated, housed, provided with medical care when needed, etc.

That is incorrect. Miranda rights are the same for juveniles as for adults. Moreover, under federal law and in most States police are required, in addition to the Miranda warning, to give the juvenile an opportunity to contacts his parents (or contact them themselves) and to suspend questioning until a parent is present.

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/fil ... rights.pdf

http://www.mirandawarning.org/applicationofmirandarightswithminors.html

Actually Miranda rights are not at all the same for juveniles as for adults; for one thing no one has to contact an adult's parents before questioning him/her. Did you ever wonder why? That would be because the rights to not derive from the juvenile, they derive from the parent. Miranda rights are an addition or maybe you could say an extension of Fifth Amendment rights, which are Constitutional rights. Everyone does not have Constitutional rights.

I did make a mistake in my earlier post. I stated that Miranda rights were civil rights, and even when I wrote it, I was not sure of it and thought that I was forgetting something. I was. My memory is getting slippery and I was wrong. It helps if one understands that law is built like a building or wall with blocks laid one upon another until it does not look anything like the foundation. The foundational rights in the US are civil rights and constitutional rights -- all rights derive from these. Of course you could say that human rights are also foundational, but one must realize that changes in national policy or war can obliterate human rights. We have seen this many times in history.

Civil rights are granted to citizens of the US. If you are born here, you are usually a citizen; the exceptions being if you were American Indian, you might not be a citizen and have civil rights at least at some times in history. Black people were also excluded from having civil rights for a long while, but I think that was finally corrected. This is how these people were denied their civil rights, just as some people coming from Mexico may not have rights.

Constitutional rights are granted to citizens, who are of age, but I think that this is somewhere between 18 and 21 depending upon which State you are from and what their requirements are.

If you reread your links with the above in mind, I think you will find that word games are being played. The rights belong to the parents (adults) not the juveniles. This is about protecting the parental rights and the Court's Civil Procedures. Consider the following, which I copied from your link:

A juvenile’s confession was considered
voluntary when his will was overborne
by his mother, not by police officers,
after he invoked his right to silence.
Officers ceased questioning a
juvenile after the juvenile invoked his
right to silence. The juvenile’s mother
convinced him to talk freely with the
officer, which lead to his confession. The
juvenile’s parents were present during the
interrogation and the law enforcement
officer did not use any coercion to get the
juvenile to confess. The juvenile’s
confession was deemed voluntary by the
Tenth Circuit.24

CONCLUSION
Once a juvenile is in custody, the
arresting officer must make a good faith
effort to notify the juvenile’s parents or
guardian to tell them that the child has
been taken into custody, what offense the
child was accused of committing and the
juvenile’s Miranda rights.

Gee

[GE Morton]

Actually Miranda rights are not at all the same for juveniles as for adults; for one thing no one has to contact an adult's parents before questioning him/her.

The links I provided (and many others you could find) indicate otherwise. The requirement to contact parents is not part of the Miranda right; it is an additional statutory right under federal law and the laws of some states. The Miranda right is a constitutional (due process) right held by all persons taken into custody by law enforcement officers.

If you reread your links with the above in mind, I think you will find that word games are being played. The rights belong to the parents (adults) not the juveniles. This is about protecting the parental rights and the Court's Civil Procedures. Consider the following, which I copied from your link:

A juvenile’s confession was considered
voluntary when his will was overborne
by his mother, not by police officers,
after he invoked his right to silence.
Officers ceased questioning a
juvenile after the juvenile invoked his
right to silence. The juvenile’s mother
convinced him to talk freely with the
officer, which lead to his confession. The
juvenile’s parents were present during the
interrogation and the law enforcement
officer did not use any coercion to get the
juvenile to confess. The juvenile’s
confession was deemed voluntary by the
Tenth Circuit.24

That decision was sound. That the boy was persuaded to confess by his mother doesn't make the confession involuntary. The Constitution constrains cops, not persuasive mothers. The cops employed no coercion.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it's reasonable to provide mentally handicapped people (the only ones who benefit from the Miranda warning) with the same protections everyone else is already aware of.

This sounds good, but how do you know who is mentally handicapped?

Yes, the phrase "invisible disability" springs to mind.

What also springs to mind is the common — almost universal — suspicion that anyone who is not mentally typical is more likely to commit a crime, perhaps especially a violent crime. As far as I know, this myth is not evidence-based at all. I believe that non-mentally-typical people are a little less likely to commit such crimes.

• Over a third of the public think people with a mental health issue are likely to be violent.
• People with severe mental illness are more likely to be the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of violent crime.
• People with mental ill health are more dangerous to themselves than to others: 80-90% of people who die by suicide are experiencing mental distress.

Quoted text taken from here.

[Pattern-chaser]

What also springs to mind is the common — almost universal — suspicion that anyone who is not mentally typical is more likely to commit a crime, perhaps especially a violent crime. As far as I know, this myth is not evidence-based at all. I believe that non-mentally-typical people are a little less likely to commit such crimes.

Another, more academic, example, text taken from here.

Abstract
Research investigating the link between mental health, crime and violence often rely on populations that are at a high-risk of violent and criminal behaviour, such as prison inmates and psychiatric patients. As a result of this selection bias, the relationship between mental health, criminal and violent behaviour is significantly over-estimated, with mental health being incorrectly linked with violent and criminal behaviours. This study examines the relationship between mental health, violence and crime in a more representative community-based sample. One hundred and twenty-one individuals with and without a mental health disorder reported their involvement in crime and completed an aggression questionnaire. The results revealed that there is no statistically significant difference in terms of violence and crime involvement between individuals with a mental health diagnosis and those without. Moreover, the study did not find any statistically significant associations between specific mental health disorders and specific crime offences. The findings suggest that certain mental health disorders do not strongly contribute to crime violence and involvement. Limitations and implications are discussed in detail.

[GE Morton]

What also springs to mind is the common — almost universal — suspicion that anyone who is not mentally typical is more likely to commit a crime, perhaps especially a violent crime. As far as I know, this myth is not evidence-based at all. I believe that non-mentally-typical people are a little less likely to commit such crimes.

There is some evidence for that (for your claim that "mentally ill" people are no more likely to commit crimes than anyone else). That is because "mental illness" covers such a wide range of abnormalities, most of which involve no propensity to violence or other criminality.

That fact, BTW, has been invoked to criticize gun ownership restrictions on persons with a history of "mental illness" --- most of those "illnesses" involve no history or propensity for violence.

[Sculptor1]

No. Miscarriages of justice are just far too common as it is.

Miranda protects innocent people from allowing the police to cook up a prosecution.

Watch this video. It could save your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xY ... KoK5ZgnmmJ

[Sculptor1]

What also springs to mind is the common — almost universal — suspicion that anyone who is not mentally typical is more likely to commit a crime, perhaps especially a violent crime. As far as I know, this myth is not evidence-based at all. I believe that non-mentally-typical people are a little less likely to commit such crimes.

There is some evidence for that (for your claim that "mentally ill" people are no more likely to commit crimes than anyone else). That is because "mental illness" covers such a wide range of abnormalities, most of which involve no propensity to violence or other criminality.

That fact, BTW, has been invoked to criticize gun ownership restrictions on persons with a history of "mental illness" --- most of those "illnesses" involve no history or propensity for violence.

Mentally ill people are most likely to receive rough justice.

[LuckyR]

What also springs to mind is the common — almost universal — suspicion that anyone who is not mentally typical is more likely to commit a crime, perhaps especially a violent crime. As far as I know, this myth is not evidence-based at all. I believe that non-mentally-typical people are a little less likely to commit such crimes.

There is some evidence for that (for your claim that "mentally ill" people are no more likely to commit crimes than anyone else). That is because "mental illness" covers such a wide range of abnormalities, most of which involve no propensity to violence or other criminality.

That fact, BTW, has been invoked to criticize gun ownership restrictions on persons with a history of "mental illness" --- most of those "illnesses" involve no history or propensity for violence.

Mentally ill people are most likely to receive rough justice.

Please elucidate exactly what you mean here.

[Sculptor1]

What also springs to mind is the common — almost universal — suspicion that anyone who is not mentally typical is more likely to commit a crime, perhaps especially a violent crime. As far as I know, this myth is not evidence-based at all. I believe that non-mentally-typical people are a little less likely to commit such crimes.

There is some evidence for that (for your claim that "mentally ill" people are no more likely to commit crimes than anyone else). That is because "mental illness" covers such a wide range of abnormalities, most of which involve no propensity to violence or other criminality.

That fact, BTW, has been invoked to criticize gun ownership restrictions on persons with a history of "mental illness" --- most of those "illnesses" involve no history or propensity for violence.

Mentally ill people are most likely to receive rough justice.

Please elucidate exactly what you mean here.

They are vulnerable to suggestion
May not be aware of their rights.
They can represent an easy target for bad policing..

[Sushan]

By this way I think the criminals are mostly benefited by this rather than the innocent. What do you think?

I think that this follows directly from the core concern not to convict innocent people. In practice, this leads directly to the release of a few guilty persons. It could not be otherwise, in the real world.

That is the main issue that I see in this law. Because of this law guilty ones either get to be released, or to conceal the crimes that they commited and the details of their associates, which can be more harmful. Only a small number of criminals will choose to confess these details willingly.

[Sushan]

The majority of those suspected of crimes are guilty of that crime or another crime (mostly because of the categories of individuals within which the police search for suspects). Having said that, a substantial minority of those questioned are wholly innocent.

I can partially agree with you. There are occasions that totally innocent ones get accused, but what happens often is the criminals getting caught. But since they can just remain silent they can either slow down the process (because the police has to find all the evidence by themselves), or if they are clever enough to hide the evidence they can even get released.