This page was last updated on June 3, 2010.
A step back; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 3, 2010. This editorial appeared only in the print edition of the Times.
For a nice change, it appears the editorial got the facts correct, mostly. Nevertheless, here’s the Supreme Court’s description of the situation.
“After advising respondent Thompkins of his rights, in full compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, Detective Helgert and another Michigan officer interrogated him about a shooting in which one victim died. At no point did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney. He was largely silent during the 3-hour interrogation, but near the end, he answered ‘yes’ when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting. He moved to suppress his statements, claiming that he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that he had not waived that right, and that his inculpatory statements were involuntary.”
The Times conclusions, however, are completely off the mark.
Before I proceed, let’s look at so-called “Miranda rights.” There’s a reason these “rights” (requiring a person to be notified of his Constitutional rights) are called Miranda rights and not Constitutional rights. That’s because the Constitution does not require law enforcement to notify a person of his rights, such as the right not “to be a witness against himself” (aka remaining silent) (Fifth Amendment) and the right to “assistance of counsel for his defense” (Sixth Amendment). This is completely consistent with our recognition that ignorance of a law is not a defense for breaking that law. Miranda rights are a fabrication of the Supreme Court in its 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling and are an example of judicial activism and legislating from the bench. Don’t get me wrong; I have no problem with the premise of law enforcement notifying a person of his rights and would have no legal objection to Congress and/or the states enacting reasonable laws to that effect. My problem with Miranda rights is it is the judicial branch’s job to interpret law, not make it. Making law is the sole responsibility of the legislative and executive branches of government.
OK, let’s get back to the Times conclusions.
First, the editorial asserts the “Supreme Court ruling chips away at individual rights.” Not true. The editorial neglected to mention the ruling was based on previous (1994) case law that ruled “A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked ‘unambiguously.’ Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459.” The Davis ruling was 9-0. Based on that precedent, Tuesday’s ruling logically concluded “There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. Both protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring an interrogation to cease when either right is invoked.”
Second, in its quest to chip away at the right, the Times used the above wrong conclusion to conclude those on the right who would support the SC decision were somehow inconsistent in their support of “freedom and liberty.” As Rush Limbaugh likes to say about himself, the Tea Party movement and conservatives live rent-free in the minds of lefties.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.