Missing word in BSO's Miranda warning allows accused killers to go free

Same

Ted,
The guy was brilliant, but socially chary. Like the absent minded professor. My father would get so absorbed in his work, that he would walk home, from campus, forgetting he had driven to work.

I've met several people, especially scientists, who forgo food, sleep, and normal hygiene, pursuing an hypothesis. I don't see this as a failing, on their part, but a rather unique ability to focus, oblivious to external stemuli.

A considerable number of our noted prodigies required assistants to maintain a semblance of normalcy. Generally perceived normalcy.

Clay

 

Same

Nosborne48,
What's your take on Columbo? You've read more than I about him. It seems, that even in a completely social setting, he was out to lunch. Ted may be right, but he just reminds me of so many folks, I may be projecting?

As to the other, power corrupts. Follow SOP and at least you have something to fall back on. If you observe your agency's procedures, you will probably be covered. I can recall just one case where a man was asked to resign, after a clean shooting, and that was 100% politics.

Clay

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part 4 of 5

As long as the person being questioned is free to leave, there's no need for Miranda when questioning them. It's always safe to do so, of course, and the reason I don't read Miranda to most people is because I'm not asking them incriminating questions.

 

I have not yet been able to read the whole thread, however it does seem strange that, in a jurisdiction where the rights must be read from a physical docuemtn, that there was an error.

It also seems strange that Miranda states that anything said may be used 'against' the interviewee.

In the UK the caution is "You do not have to say anything, however it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

(The bit about harming your defence was introduced to remedy what was seen as an excessive imbalance in evidential requirements).

In other words it is an opportunity for the interviewee to give information that will support their innocence as much as anything.

As an aside, as I understand it, the US is the only jurisdiction where entrapment is a substantive defence, and even there it does not apply where there is a known histroy of the criminal behaviour under investigation.

E.g. in the UK we can send under-age volunteers into alcohol and tobacco sellers to determine their compliance with age restrictions and, provided there is no element of persuasion, (you provide "an unexceptional opportuinity" to carry out the sale), it may be used in Court as evidence.

 

I enjoyed that show because I've known people like Colombo. They know their appearance will keep them from being taken seriously so they turn that handicap into an advantage by playing dumb while outsmarting antagonists.

I think it was in the first show that the antagonists was a psychiatrist who had killed his wife. He at first dismissed Colombo as a dolt but, when he came to realize what he was up against, told Colombo he was a classic case of compensation.

 

I forgot to mention, the UK Courts will accept on occasion different wording as long as it can be shown that the equivalent information was made clear.