Miranda rights warning could get rewrite

Tomas Segovia
Soc 313-003
Blog Post #3

This article I found on MSNBC talks about how the Supreme Court might be headed toward telling police they must explicitly advise criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation. The problem arose after a man in Florida was arrested for illegally possessing a firearm. He was read the Miranda rights and signed a statement acknowledging that he understood them. However, during the interview police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning." Attorneys and judges seem to be split on the issue however due to the number of cases regarding unclear presentation Miranda rights the Supreme Court might be decide to make police more explicit.

Obviously the issue relates to formal social control and how police have used peoples ignorance of their rights in order to coerce and intimidate them into a confession before they can speak to a lawyer. But this notion can be both helpful and harmful. Potentially, it has the ability to allow someone who is innocent to speak to a layer and discuss their options. On the other hand, it might be exploited by criminals who actually have done wrong. Either way, it would at least limit some of the overwhelming control police officers have over citizens.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34317094/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/