I thought I must have misheard the text of the Miranda warning I heard on

[Joe Chi Minh]

the box the other night, but I've just heard it again.

The minimal Miranda warning apparently enunciated in the Miranda v. Arizona case, and invariably used by detectives on the box, contains the bizarre addendum, "...and WILL be used against you in a court of law"; where the full text sensibly does not.

The former contains an implicit condemnation of whatever words the addressee chooses to articulate - maybe even questions! And the detective invariably emphasises the word, "WILL", when the reality may, in fact, be that what the person chooses to state even at that point, might comprehensively exculpates him, if the officer did but appreciate it. It's gratuitously menacing; as much as to say, "Well, I'm reading you your rights, buddy, but I know you're guilty as hell!" Seems really anomalous to me, and in formal terms, gratuitously disrespectful.

Lucky for you, you don't have an inquisitorial system, which saner societies than ours in the US and UK use to the benefit, I believe of all. Except maybe the bank accounts of the lawyers, though they seem to thrive in every society.

PS: I should have added this to the thread entitled, "Burden of proof has little relevance...".

[Kutjara]

1. Actually, the UK modified the "right to silence..."

...a few years ago. The warning the police now give is: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence."

In other words, before Phony Tony and his crew of jackals got their hands on the law, the courts were not allowed to draw any inference from a suspect's silence. Now, however, an inference of guilt is drawn if a suspect mounts a defense in court based on facts they didn't mention during questioning.

To put this in perspective, UK cops typically raid suspect's homes at around 6am, because they're both more likely to find the suspect at home, and because the suspect is likely to be more docile at that time of the morning. The suspect will then be arrested, "cautioned" (the UK equivalent of the Miranda warning), dragged down to the police station (often in their pajamas), and questioned. Under the current legislation, the suspect had damned well better mount a coherent and comprehensive defense right then and there because, if he/she doesn't, the jury will later be told that anything the suspect mentions at trial that he/she didn't during questioning is probably a lie.

I fought long and hard to stop this change to police procedure when I lived in the UK, but the average Brit (like the average Yank) simply doesn't give a damn about their fundamental freedoms, as long as their sacred right to buy an iPhone or watch their favorite soap opera isn't impeded.

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. "I fought long and hard to stop this change to police procedure when I lived

in the UK, but the average Brit (like the average Yank) simply doesn't give a damn about their fundamental freedoms, as long as their sacred right to buy an iPhone or watch their favorite soap opera isn't impeded."

Very well done. The UK doesn't seem to deserve people like you.

On a lighter note, re "their sacred right to an iPhone" (whatever that may be), don't you mean "as long as they have a cell-phone that makes pancakes?"

[Maat]

2. If they said 'will,'

it's certainly not the Miranda warning that I learned in law school.

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. That suggests that Wikipedia or the author who wrote the article

on the subject, must have been as influenced by TV "gumshoe" progammes, as the scriptwriters, themselves, evidently were by earlier productions.

Here is what I found:

"Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested or placed in a custodial situation, the typical warning is as follows:

“ 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 have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you".

[RuleOfNah]

5. Miranda ain't what it used to be.

Unless you are rich or famous or rich and famous.

Oliverio Martinez, the 34-year-old farm worker who brought the case, was interrogated in an ambulance and a hospital emergency room after being shot five times by police.

http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner1210.html

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. I rest my case. What sort of morons would formulate the Miranda warning

in that way? Well, I suppose, the type who have contributed to a Google for "police brutality videos" turning up 2,210,000 entries...

Truly the stuff of nightmares. As if Americans don't already live under enough unwarranted stresses, to have cause to fear their own police without any cause whatsoever. Apparently, to just speak to a police officer to ask him a qestion is to take a serious risk.
This link is from this Justice folder on DU, entitled A Pandemic of Police Brutality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=224x2259