In response to:

Miranda and Public Safety

42Berserker Wrote: May 09, 2010 12:33 PM
Most of us are raised to do right things and to tell the truth...and that is the ideal of our society. So...where does this concept of Miranda come from and why? IMHO, someone used the trees to hide the forest. Some mutt does something wrong and when caught fesses up to it because of some ingrained moral instinct. We say, "No, No, you must not admit your folly or tell the truth." Where does that come from and what social interest is served by that silliness. You say that some authorities will abuse the arrested person and MAKE him or her confess? OK...where is it written that the lawyer cannot challenge the confession on that ground? And where is it written that once a person is actually arrested that the authorities cannot be...

"Law enforcement) interviewed Mr. Shahzad ... under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule. ... He was eventually ... Mirandized and continued talking."
-- John Pistole, FBI deputy director, May 4

WASHINGTON -- All well and good. But what if Faisal Shahzad, the confessed Times Square bomber, had stopped talking? When you tell someone he has the right to remain silent, there is a distinct possibility that he will remain silent, is there not? And then what?

The authorities deserve full credit for capturing Shahzad within 54 hours. Credit is also due them for obtaining information from...

Related Tags: National Security Safety