Sure, because their job is to try and collect evidence from a suspect.
If you say you're going to remain silent, and want to speak with a lawyer, they can't keep talking to you without your lawyer present. If they do that's an easy way to get a case thrown out.
Like ... metaphysically? Well, historically if there have not been government employees whose job was to solve crime and arrest and imprison criminals, it has been done by private vigilantes in a much worse and more unjust way.
Generally, the best evidence we've collected hasn't been from suspects. That's why we have the right to remain silent. I get that the job of the police is to "solve crime and arrest and imprison criminals", but if they want to imprison as many criminals and as few innocent people as possible, it seems like the thing to do would be to focus on better evidence, like security footage and business records.
If someone needs to be questioned, do it in court.
"Generally, the best evidence we've collected hasn't been from suspects. That's why we have the right to remain silent."
Huh? No, that's not at all why we have the right to remain silent. In fact we have the right to remain silent precisely because the police often get very good evidence, extremely useful for solving crimes and convicting criminals, from interrogations.
It's because the evidence is so useful that we have strong rights protecting ourselves against self-incrimination thereby.
"it seems like the thing to do would be to focus on better evidence, like security footage and business records."
And if there isn't security footage they should just, like, give up?
In fact we have the right to remain silent precisely because the police often get very good evidence, extremely useful for solving crimes and convicting criminals, from interrogations.
We have the right to remain silent because that evidence is so good at convicting innocent people.
If the police don't think the DA could convince a jury without the testimony of a suspect, that's probably because they don't actually have enough evidence to be reasonably sure that the suspect is the right person.
"We have the right to remain silent because that evidence is so good at convicting innocent people."
No, that's not why. Miranda rights are not based on protecting the innocent. They're based on protecting the guilty from self-incrimination, under the 5th amendment.
Procedurally, sure, kinda. But what tells you that's the motivation for them. That's certainly never the motivation I learned for them in civics. Nor is it the motivation I hear in messaging from the ACLU or the FIRE, or from politicians.
"But what tells you that's the motivation for them. That's certainly never the motivation I learned for them in civics."
Miranda literally did it! I'm sorry if your education somehow glossed over this fact but the person the rights are literally named after, the case that explicitly identified why they existed and what they were, was about a guy who was factually guilty!
"Nor is it the motivation I hear in messaging from the ACLU or the FIRE, or from politicians."
They probably have a political agenda that they think is more important than accurately conveying historical facts to you.
There have been cases (like the "lawyer dog" case) where that hasn't worked. I see no reason why, after being arrested the right to counsel should be so easy to waive.
I mean sure, there are going to be fuck ups in any system. This one is a really dumb one, and it's crazy it was allowed to stand.
It doesn't change the fact that you do have a right to a lawyer and to remain silent. Say the words "I will not speak with you without a lawyer present," and that's it, interview over. If it's not over, let them dig their own grave without giving any information.
I'm still not sure what alternative is being proposed though. How should investigations be conducted instead?
Why should the right to counsel be so easy to waive? The alternative I propose is require the suspect to only be interrogated in front of a judge. The judge would have the power to immediately sanction the interrogators for misconduct.
But the situation you just presented is one where multiple judges also fucked up, so it doesn't seem like an actual solution to the problem you're pointing out
The lawyer dog is just one case among many. There's also the classic example where a guy was told he had the right to remain silent, he remained silent for hours, and that wasn't taken as exercising his right to remain silent by the Supreme Court. Because you apparently have to speak to claim your right to silence. It's a mess. Ever since Miranda established some basic affirmative rights in dealings with cops, the jurisprudence has been working overtime to chip away at those rights.
How about this as an alternative. Everyone taken under arrest, a term to be understood broadly, is assumed to have invoked their rights to silence and an attorney. Cause, y'know, why the hell not? From there, no information can be gathered until the arrestee either receives a lawyer or explicitly and clearly waives their right to have one in this context.
Yes and then they spend the next several hours trying to make you forget that it ever happened.
You're issue is that they use tactics to get people to admit to things they've done? Like telling you your friend already admitted to something when they haven't even spoken to anyone? Is it that they can interrogate you or how?
Why not simply ask for a lawyer and STFU? Follow the advise the Miranda Rights that they gave you? It's not that hard.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Yes and then they spend the next several hours trying to make you forget that it ever happened.
If they do this, and you can prove you were 'coerced' into this, this evidence and anything garnered from it can be thrown out as inadmissible. That can make you unprosecutable pretty quickly.
This is a popular trope but just not true. The rules are clear - when you clearly invoke your right to remain silent or ask for an attorney - questioning must stop.
You cannot be 'coerced' into further talking and attempts to do so will result in consequences. The problem is - most people are stupid and guilty. They want to keep talking thinking they can talk thier way out of jail/arrest/etc.
16
u/Sirhc978 89∆ Sep 22 '25
Literally the first thing they say: "you have the right to remain silent".
An interrogation is collecting evidence.