A short list of overturned Supreme Court landmark decisions

[Professor Emeritus]

they're also capable of learning it themselves.

you're already leaping to the convictions...but a lot has to happen between the initial contact with a police officer and a conviction. Including, in the case of a booking/arrest, being read your Rights and given privileges while in custody.

Many of those with intellectual disabilities would obviously struggle to learn their constitutional rights on their own, especially if they've never even been told they need to. And once again you're making people's freedom more dependent on their resources than it needs to be - why would you do that?

Also, why require the reading of rights in booking but not during the initial arrest, when many of the violations of rights occur between arrest and booking?


I'm kind of flabbergasted why you're fighting to add more inequality to the system while, so far as I can tell, gaining literally nothing positive in return.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Maybe schools should recite Miranda rights every morning instead of indoctrinating kids into swearing allegiance to a flag

There's a positive to that but also depressing, imagine starting every school day with a reminder of potential arrest.


Honestly everyone I know hated their required civics (or "citizenship") class in high school, which is a shame because it honestly should be a top-3 most important class for all of high school yet it's usually taught as some shytty boring by the numbers waste of time.

I read a science fiction series once where the USA's chickens came home to roost and America basically got bodied by the rest of the world after crossing the line one too many times and lost its international status entirely, becoming a pariah on the level of post-WW1 Germany. In that reality high school civics classes had become this intense, engaging, existential experience considered more important than anything else you did in high school, because we were trying to avoid a repeat of the shyt that had destroyed the nation in the first place.

 

[OfTheCross]

Many of those with intellectual disabilities would obviously struggle to learn their constitutional rights on their own, especially if they've never even been told they need to. And once again you're making people's freedom more dependent on their resources than it needs to be - why would you do that?

Also, why require the reading of rights in booking but not during the initial arrest, when many of the violations of rights occur between arrest and booking?


I'm kind of flabbergasted why you're fighting to add more inequality to the system while, so far as I can tell, gaining literally nothing positive in return.

You know...I just realized that what I'm advocating for is a very, very slight modification.

Instead of having your Rights read at the precinct, Officers currently, typically read you your Rights at the point of arrest.

The thing is, that even that's too late. If anything, it should be read at the point of contact or the initiation of the questioning process. That's when it would be it's most beneficial to us.

What I'm advocating for doesn't really help or harm us.

But speaking in regard to the Miranda decision, I think the onus is on us, and not the State, to educate ourselves on the law. Just because you're ignorant of a law doesn't mean you can't be held accountable if you break it.

 

[Mook]

To your first question...yes.

When the cops stop you, if you don't know your Rights I don't think it's their job to tell you.

When you're getting booked in, the person there can educate you on your phone call, your Right to an attorney and all that other shyt. But at the initial point of contact, it's all on you.

To your 2nd question, again, yes. Anybody can get killed. I'm pro abortion. Or if it's "cruel and unusual" than no one should get killed. We're all humans at the end of it and all feel pain.

this is stupid ass reasoning. The cops aren’t supposed to be fukking opps they’re supposed to be people who help the community.

 

[OfTheCross]

I don't think it's the police's duty to educate you on the law

Supreme Court Ruling Rejects the Promise of Miranda Rights | ACLU

While the decision in Vega v. Tekoh doesn’t reduce the obligation of police to issue Miranda warnings, it eliminates a critical avenue for justice.

www.aclu.org

For more than half a century, nearly every American with a television has been able to recite the words that, under the Constitution, protect their right not to incriminate themselves under government interrogation. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can (and will) be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to any questioning.” These Miranda warnings, mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court in that eponymous 1966 case litigated by the ACLU, form part of the very fabric of law enforcement’s relationship with the public.

Today, in Vega v. Tekoh, the court backtracked substantially on its Miranda promise. In Vega, the court held 6-3 (over an excellent dissent by Justice Elena Kagan) that an individual who is denied Miranda warnings and whose compelled statements are introduced against them in a criminal trial cannot sue the police officer who violated their rights, even where a criminal jury finds them not guilty of any crime. By denying people whose rights are violated the ability to seek redress under our country’s most important civil rights statute, the court has further widened the gap between the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights and the people’s ability to hold government officials accountable for violating them.