Does Not Compute

Wednesday 2 June 2010 - Filed under Dumbassery + SCOTUS

Joan Biskupic via USA Today:

By a 5-4 vote, the justices said that once rights have been read and questioning begun, a suspect must clearly declare that he wants to remain silent and cannot simply be silent.

If I have to speak up in order to be silent, what’s the fucking point of having a right to remain silent?

Tagged: » » » » »

2010-06-02  »  madlibertarianguy

Talkback x 2

  1. Anna!
    2 June 2010 @ 8:39 pm

    I suppose it’s to prevent any misconception (read:excuse) that law enforcement could claim that would cause them to believe a suspect is being uncooperative VS just invoking their rights. It falls in line with the requirement that a patient must actively give consent, in writing, for medical treatment at an Emergency Room… when presenting oneself asking for medical treatment would automatically imply consent.

  2. madlibertarianguy
    2 June 2010 @ 11:18 pm

    I don’t buy that parallel. I have a RIGHT to remain silent, but not one to medical treatment at a hospital. One shouldn’t have to temporarily waive that right in order to invoke it.

    The state has the inane ability to fuck people’s lives up, and Miranda is a way if helping to mitigate that. Eroding it erodes my ability to protect myself from police “overzealousness”, and that’s just not cool.

    In my estimation, a right to remain silent should mean remain silent indefinitely.