Will Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of the law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get at the Devil?
Will Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
--A Man for All Seasons
Even before Boston Marathon bomber 'suspect number two' was taken into custody Friday evening, the media were already chirping that, if the suspect were taken alive, then his 'Miranda warning' would likely be omitted. The Miranda warning is the legal requirement that people being arrested must be clearly formed about their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
The justification for not reading this person his Miranda rights is the 'public safety exception,' which is another variation of the notion that extreme situations call for extreme measures.
Stated differently, when the going gets tough, the rule of law that protects freedom should be suspended in favor of discretionary rule that reduces freedom--even if the freedom that is reduced applies to a single individual who is suspected of a crime.
But it is precisely in times of strain that the rule of law must be upheld, because freedom is most likely to be lost when people feel threatened and emotion trumps reason.
No matter what rancor a person might hold toward this individual, no matter what threat this person's connections still may be to others, there is no legitimate justification for stripping this person of his rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
4 comments:
Miranda warning seems to be a fairly recent convention popularized by Dragnet, among others. Victims should attempt to prosecute w/o suspect incriminating himself as granted by constitution.
Not sure I understand your point. The Miranda warning was developed to help people understand their rights. Because govt is force (and thus perpetually tempted to push the limit of the law), people may unknowingly incriminate themselves if they are not warned (due to intimidation, etc). Miranda tilts situation more toward individual and respect for 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments.
Simply that self incriminating statements should not eligible for use to prosecute someone regardless of whether statements were read after detention.
Got it. Seems problematic, though, given the State's propensity for ever-expanding power and use of force.
Post a Comment