In a 5-4 decision in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court has ruled that suspects must explicitly assert their right to remain silent under the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision.
NYT link here, full ruling
here, and the
SCOTUSblog breaks it down here.
Is it just me, or does this seem VERY messed up? I mean, if a suspect invokes
(
Read more... )
Comments 3
That's precisely why Sotomayor, who's got more than a little experience in criminal justice, lambasted the majority in her dissent. This decision pretty much goes counter what Miranda was doing: protecting those who are not savvy enough to be able to navigate the legal system.
Reply
And she ends up being convicted based on the prosecutions case which claims that she murdered the girl in some sort of "demonic sex game" (?????). I don't think for one second that this sort of case would fly if Amanda had been from Italy.
My point is, when the shoe is on the other foot, its easy to get riled up. That being said, we should take it as an example of how not to treat suspects just because English isn't their first language and we have a preconceived notion about who they are solely based on their race/ethnicity.
Reply
And the point you raised was one I hadn't even considered: how adversely can and will this affect people whose first language isn't English?
Reply
Leave a comment