Fortune Favors The Bold

poortaste:

katharinec:

mandalay:

Guys, this is kind of a big deal. I know everyone was distracted today with the new justice, California, and North Korea, but pay attention! This is serious shit.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers … The court’s conservatives overturned that opinion, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying “it was poorly reasoned.” … The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He and Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move Stevens read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

But this is the kicker:

The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

(The original case was in Louisiana, of course.) What is troubling is that this is a situation in which the ALLEGED perpetrator is at a serious disadvantage - and under serious “pressure” from cops to admit to something. Obviously defendants are usually poor, uneducated, and unaware of their rights, which is why they’re guaranteed a lawyer.  Why take away the requirement of their lawyer’s presence, if the cops are supposedly doing everything by the book? It is very scary when rights are taken away…..What’s going on, Obama? -M

This is troublesome to say the least.

I am troubled by this, but also conflicted.

One thing you don’t want is for police to sit around and wait for someone’s lawyer to show up (who will take his/her time doing so if the situation requires it) while time-sensitive evidence loses its usefulness. If there were a “lawyer-only interrogations” policy in the criminal justice system, it would prevent a lot of unfair manipulative situations, but it would surely be abused by the sort of wily sociopaths whom we most want off the streets.

One thing that’s unquestionable here, though, is the sanctity and clarity of the Fifth Amendment. If someone is a suspect in a crime, and you advise them that “anything that you say can be used against you in a court of law”, they have to take some responsibility for what they say afterward, right?

But this opens a whole can of worms regarding the poor, disabled, and uneducated… whose responsiblity is it to make sure people can function in that situation? Theirs? Ours? I mean, what do you think about adults who are walking the streets who have little understanding about what their governmental rights are, and what laws apply to them? Is that not SCARY? Is this not one of the reasons why children are treated differently by the legal system - they have fewer rights but more protections because they can’t understand our society fully?

An additional complicating factor in this ruling is that the guy actually committed the crime, then he self-incriminated (after being read his rights), and his lawyer was trying to get the conviction overturned on a technicality. So he’s an idiot criminal! Maybe you don’t want him hanging out on Main Street after all? (But death penalty? Commute the sentence. We can all go to bed easier then.)

==================

My advice: all (innocent) people here in the US need to have a basic knowledge about the role of police officers in society, and as to what authority they have (and do not have), especially when it comes to detention, interrogations, and coercion. Some of that stuff is really nuanced, and no one thinks much of it until it applies to them. Bad idea! Be smart and be prepared!