Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (15681)	6/26/2002 9:18:21 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I don't practice criminal law (except one or two appointed cases many years ago), so I can't speak from experience about the detailed workings of it. But it has allowed criminals to go free, and they have preyed on society as a result. It seems to me that the rule imposes the consequences of police misconduct on the next victim rather than on the police. All of the consequences weren't known when it was passed, of course. I would like to know more about that. It wasn't "passed". The Supreme Court announced that the Constitution required the reading of rights to prisoners (including the right to a lawyer). That was in the 1960's, and the right is called the "Miranda" right because it was announced in a case called "Miranda vs. Arizona". I forget what crime Mr. Miranda had committed, but he walked as a result.