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

[LuckyR]

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.

Sort of depends. There are several categories of suspect acquisition: those that evidence, witness statements etc point toward, the usual suspects (typically for property crimes) and family and friends, typically for murders. Most of the wholly innocent are in the last and some in the second.

[Pattern-chaser]

By this way I think the criminals are mostly benefited by this rather than the innocent.

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.

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.

[To LuckyR] 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.

We all know that, in real-life law enforcement, there is a choice to be made. Do we give priority to not convicting innocent people, unavoidably allowing a few guilty people to go free, or do we concentrate on convicting every criminal that we can, and accept the penalty that innocent people will go to prison? In many/most countries, priority is given to the former.

You seem to disagree with this basic principle, preferring to convict all criminals, no matter the cost. Have I understood your position correctly?

[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.

Let's be careful with balance here. It's difficult to know who is guilty and who is not. No-one ever said that the investigation of crimes, and the prosecution of criminals, is easy. Hopefully, the majority of those suspected of criminal behaviour are guilty, but we don't really know that.

What we do know is that, when DNA testing became possible and available, they went down 'death rows', and re-examined the evidence. A full third of American prisoners sentenced to death were innocent of the crimes for which they were going to be killed!

My (only) point here is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about the proportions of guilty and innocent people in court, in prison, or already executed. Because we can't really be sure.

Legal systems are not perfect. And there are occasions when the completely innocent have been given the capital punishment. But it is dangerous if people become less trustworthy about the legal system, as it will loose its grip on the society. Law and order is necessary to keep the order in the society. But it has its defects as well.

[Sushan]

Our two posts are completely consistent. 2/3 is a majority and 1/3 is a substantial minority.

The title is a loaded question: " rather than" asks which is the majority, which should be tracked by statistics if available.

Both, I would say, are protected by Miranda, and rightly so, as both are innocent. "Innocent suspect" is oxymoron, since suspect must be innocent. i would like to know what the author has said, other than asking a stupid question.

I am not sure whether there are enough statistics about the matter. And unfortunately the author has not mentioned much about the law rather than mentioning its origin. What I have raised as a question does not need specific statistics. The opinions regarding the matter will be highly appreciated. 

[Sushan]

This practice was included with the intention of protecting the innocent suspects from the questionings by the police which can sometimes be unjust as well as barbaric (a popular secret).

I don't know what 'popular secret' means, but police procedure of that kind very often leads to coerced confession and wrongful conviction. A lot of those people are sentenced to death. This, by me, is not a good thing.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-iss ... y-innocent

It may have its pros like preventing the innocent from being brutally treated, protect them from taking wrong confessions which are made under threats and the wrong party being punished in court cases.

Only if the police actually follow up on the Miranda warning. In fact, it doesn't prevent anybody from being brutally treated.

But I think this is used more frequently by the professional criminals to just manipulate the police and their interrogations, and they know that police can do nothing more than just questioning.

How is that manipulation? If you're arrested and don't say anything until your lawyer comes, that is your right. The police see you on the street when you're walking to work, they think you fit the description they've had from a witness to a robbery, they throw you to the ground, kneel on your back (if you're lucky, skinny and not too black), handcuff you and stuff you in back of a car, shove you into an interrogation room. You have no frickin idea what's going on and you're scared spitless, but nobody gives you any water for twelve hours and they don't let you get up off that metal chair or sleep or turn off the lights for 30, 35 hours, while big, mean, loud, sweaty guys take turns, in your face, yelling questions you don't understand what they're talking about, telling you they know you did it, you might as well confess and get it over with. All you have - I mean, literally, all you have to hang on to is the right to shut up.

And the lawyer who will present at the time of interrogation will support this not with the best interest of the police, but of his client. By this way I think the criminals are mostly benefited by this rather than the innocent.

The people who might benefit, whether they've committed any crime or not, are the ones who can afford a lawyer. In America, the law is a very expensive commodity.

1. What I have meant by the word 'popular secret' is things that the public should not know, but everyone knows somehow.

2. Maybe Miranda ruling does not protect the suspects from being brutally treated. But I do not think the police will choose to exert any physical harassment in front of the suspect's lawyer.

3. Yes, in such a scenario all I have is the right to remain silent. But if the law does not prevent me from being harassed, all I will actually be left to hang on to will be my own strength.

4. I am not an expert in the legal system of America. But when it is said that "the state will provide you a lawyer", I understand it as a service which is free of charge.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

Let's be careful with balance here. It's difficult to know who is guilty and who is not. No-one ever said that the investigation of crimes, and the prosecution of criminals, is easy. Hopefully, the majority of those suspected of criminal behaviour are guilty, but we don't really know that.

What we do know is that, when DNA testing became possible and available, they went down 'death rows', and re-examined the evidence. A full third of American prisoners sentenced to death were innocent of the crimes for which they were going to be killed!

My (only) point here is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about the proportions of guilty and innocent people in court, in prison, or already executed. Because we can't really be sure.

Legal systems are not perfect. And there are occasions when the completely innocent have been given the capital punishment. But it is dangerous if people become less trustworthy about the legal system, as it will loose its grip on the society. Law and order is necessary to keep the order in the society. But it has its defects as well.

Just for the record, do you support the principle that convicting the innocent must be avoided wherever possible, even if it means a few guilty people will be released? Or are you on the other side of the fence, that says that the guilty must always be punished, regardless of the consequences for the innocent?

[Ecurb]

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 12th, 2022, 8:29 am


What we do know is that, when DNA testing became possible and available, they went down 'death rows', and re-examined the evidence. A full third of American prisoners sentenced to death were innocent of the crimes for which they were going to be killed!

DNA testing cannot prove anyone to be innocent,although it can cast sufficient doubt on a guilty verdict to reverse it. It's hard to "prove" a negative, and there are always alternative explanations for why the DNA found in semen, or under the fingernails of the victim doesn not match that of the accused.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 12th, 2022, 8:29 am
What we do know is that, when DNA testing became possible and available, they went down 'death rows', and re-examined the evidence. A full third of American prisoners sentenced to death were innocent of the crimes for which they were going to be killed!

DNA testing cannot prove anyone to be innocent, although it can cast sufficient doubt on a guilty verdict to reverse it.

In the case of rape, DNA testing can *prove* that the semen found on/in the victim does *not* belong to the accused. I imagine there may be other, similar, examples.

[Sushan]

Quite clearly, the Miranda warning protects only the very ignorant or very stupid. Anyone of normal intelligence who owns a TV and has watched cop shows knows about the Miranda warning, and knows that he can request a lawyer and that anything he says can be used against him.

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.

Knowing something is different from being able to apply it in the practical scenario. Many of us have watched cop-shows. But if we face a situation of being suddenly arrested by the police for no reason, how many of us will actually remember (and use) Miranda rights.

I think Miranda warning is not for the mentally handicapped, since they do not have the ability to understand it even it is clearly explained to them.

[gad-fly]

Our two posts are completely consistent. 2/3 is a majority and 1/3 is a substantial minority.

The title is a loaded question: " rather than" asks which is the majority, which should be tracked by statistics if available.

Both, I would say, are protected by Miranda, and rightly so, as both are innocent. "Innocent suspect" is oxymoron, since suspect must be innocent. i would like to know what the author has said, other than asking a stupid question.

I am not sure whether there are enough statistics about the matter. And unfortunately the author has not mentioned much about the law rather than mentioning its origin. What I have raised as a question does not need specific statistics. The opinions regarding the matter will be highly appreciated. 

Metaphorically, asking " A rather than B" infers both apply, subject to more A than B. Correct?

An unloaded question would be: Which? A or B? Why?

What is Miranda Warning? Its purpose is clear: to protect the suspect( or innocent suspect if you like). That the culprit may also be protected in the process is incidental, or happened but not intended.

To answer your question categorically: No, but arguably, there may be exception, but perhaps too few to be mentioned.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think Miranda warning is not for the mentally handicapped, since they do not have the ability to understand it even it is clearly explained to them.

As an autist, I believe I am referred to as "mentally handicapped", but I have no such difficulties. Many other neurodivergent people will tell you the same. I think you mean to refer to those who have special educational needs; i.e. some people with mental health issues, and some without.

[Ecurb]

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 12th, 2022, 8:29 am
What we do know is that, when DNA testing became possible and available, they went down 'death rows', and re-examined the evidence. A full third of American prisoners sentenced to death were innocent of the crimes for which they were going to be killed!

DNA testing cannot prove anyone to be innocent, although it can cast sufficient doubt on a guilty verdict to reverse it.

In the case of rape, DNA testing can *prove* that the semen found on/in the victim does *not* belong to the accused. I imagine there may be other, similar, examples.

Of course. But that doesn't prove that the accused wasn't the rapist. It merely proves that the woman had sex with someone other than the accused. Maybe the rapist never ejaculated.

I'll grant that DNA testing can suggest the accused's innocense, but it can't prove it.

[Pattern-chaser]

What we do know is that, when DNA testing became possible and available, they went down 'death rows', and re-examined the evidence. A full third of American prisoners sentenced to death were innocent of the crimes for which they were going to be killed!

DNA testing cannot prove anyone to be innocent, although it can cast sufficient doubt on a guilty verdict to reverse it.

In the case of rape, DNA testing can *prove* that the semen found on/in the victim does *not* belong to the accused. I imagine there may be other, similar, examples.

Of course. But that doesn't prove that the accused wasn't the rapist. It merely proves that the woman had sex with someone other than the accused. Maybe the rapist never ejaculated.

I'll grant that DNA testing can suggest the accused's innocence, but it can't prove it.

We're drifting from the main point: that people are being found guilty of crimes they did not commit. Not the odd one, but many. That must surely be a grave problem in any civilised country?

[Ecurb]

We're drifting from the main point: that people are being found guilty of crimes they did not commit. Not the odd one, but many. That must surely be a grave problem in any civilised country?

Naturally we shouldn't convict people for crimes that they didn't commit. However, I'm guessing that the problem is perhaps less severe than it appears. Suppose a professional mafia hit man who has murdered a dozen people is finally convicted of a murder someone else committed? Is that so horrible?

My guess is that the police arrest (and sometimes convict) known criminals, some of whom are not guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted. This still constitutes a miscarriage of justice, but if a murderer is convicted of murder, the miscarrage is not SO horrible.

Of course the problem is that the Police (and courts) may have their views skewed by prejudices and mistakes, and convicting innocent people is clearly far worse than convicting those guilty of the same crime in a different instance.

Obviously, here in America we convict and sentence too many people.

[Sushan]

This practice was included with the intention of protecting the innocent suspects from the questionings by the police which can sometimes be unjust as well as barbaric (a popular secret). It may have its pros like preventing the innocent from being brutally treated, protect them from taking wrong confessions which are made under threats and the wrong party being punished in court cases.

The chief benefit of the Miranda warning (when police issue it and the suspect takes advantage of it) is ensuring that a witness is present during suspect interrogations.

But I think this is used more frequently by the professional criminals to just manipulate the police and their interrogations, and they know that police can do nothing more than just questioning. And the lawyer who will present at the time of interrogation will support this not with the best interest of the police, but of his client. By this way I think the criminals are mostly benefited by this rather than the innocent. What do you think?

Of course, simply because most of those identified as suspects and interrogated will be guilty of the offense in question. But if it prevents coerced confessions from any innocent persons then the warning is justified:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

--- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

I agree with the first part of your comment. Yes, it prevents police from taking coerced confessions from innocents. But I cannot fully agree with the quote that you mentioned. It is bad if a innocent one has to suffer. But ten guilty ones (let's say killers) escaping will be quite a disaster. If Miranda warning facilitates such an issue, there is a serious problem with this rule.