SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (366962)6/1/2010 2:42:02 PM
From: Elroy   of 793813
 
The Supreme Court this morning ruled that criminal suspects must explicitly tell police they want to remain silent to officially invoke their Miranda rights during questioning.


This makes sense. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. A suspect can remain silent if he chooses, but he shouldn't have the right to not be questioned if the police want to question him.

Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the question-ing.

This seems to imply that Miranda gives the right not to be questioned. Is that in law? The right to remain silent, and the right to not be questioned without a lawyer present are not the same thing. I'd say police can question away for hours, and the suspect can remain silent if he chooses. Being questioned doesn't remove his right to remain silent or his right to request an attorney.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News