"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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
Anyone who watches crime shows such as NYPD Blue or Cops has probably heard these words before (and I'm sure some of you out there have heard them out of an officer's mouth as they were arresting you, naughty!). These are called the Miranda Rights and having them read to you means that you have been Mirandized. These rights are brought to you by the Amendments 5 & 6. Technically, you do not have to be read your Miranda Rights in order to be arrested, only to be questioned after you've been accused of a crime. Additionally, they won't read these rights to question you when you are NOT a suspect. And, they do not have to read you your rights if they are merely asking questions of fact that do not point to guilt such as name, address, Social Security number, etc.
You can thank Ernesto Miranda for police officers being mandated to read these rights. In 1963, Miranda kidnapped and raped a mildly retarded woman of 18. He was arrested, brought in for questioning and admitted his guilt to the police as he was not aware that he had the right to not incriminate himself or to have an attorney present. At the trial, Miranda's attorney tried to have his confession thrown out because he was not notified of his rights. This attempt was denied and Miranda was convicted. In 1966, the issue was taken to the Supreme Court and based upon the 5th & 6th amendments, they ruled that people should be told what their rights were before questioning because up until then, the police were taking full advantage of people's ignorance in this area.
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone is aware of their rights. Furthermore, most people do not realize that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill or Rights do not just apply to the citizens within the country. They apply to all people who set foot on its soil under the 14th Amendment. Because being in this country makes you susceptible to the law of the land's jurisdictions, you are also afforded its rights. Just as Michael P. Fay was sentenced to a hefty fine, jail sentence, and 4 whacks of a cane for vandalizing Singapore, foreigners must obey the laws in our country. And this inclusion is what makes our country so great! To me, the required Miranda Rights being read to the accused, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and other values that our forefathers set out to establish are pretty darn fair. In a lot of ways, they were way ahead of their time.
The Fourteenth Amendment states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note, this last part says "any persons" not "any citizens."
People want to invoke the Constitution, etc when it works in their favor but deny their existence in a speech of incredulity when they don't. For example, I had a friend pass around an email message asking you to sign your name at the bottom to show your opposition to the government removing religious symbols from government buildings. The people electronically "signing" this waiver (which I'm quite positive the muckity mucks of Washington D.C. would never see...) were LIVID that the Pentagon and other such buildings were being stripped of crosses and other religious paraphernalia or other emails would be upset that the Obamas didn't put up a Christmas tree. Several problems with this issue. To put it simply, there is a separation of church and state, which I am wholeheartedly glad for for the following reasons:
1. I don't want the leaders of my nation to represent me religiously. I might not believe the same way that they do.
2. Why are we so incensed at the government refusing to take a Christian stand? This would send out the message that "we are Christians" and therefore alienate the many Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu, atheist, etc citizens of this great land. How would they feel if the government decided to slap the Star of David on every building--would they be okay with this?
3. Spirituality is a very personal thing for me. I don't understand the concept of wanting religion constantly in everything. I don't want to have it thrust in my face everywhere I go because, again, I might not believe what you believe so why must I be subjected to it everywhere I go?
The #2 statement is what makes me think our forefathers were ahead of their time. They mostly did it because of the religious oppression previously experienced by other countries but they were right on the mark. Everyone should feel welcome in America and so they attempted to create a neutral government and a space where everyone could worship (or not) in the way they saw fit.
But I have digressed a bit. To get back on the subject, I submit to you Faizal Shahzad and the Times Square bombing. Although born in Pakistan, Shahzad became a naturalized citizen in 2009. After the bombing, Representative Peter Kind and Senator John McCain both opposed to the police reading him the Miranda Rights. Senator Joe Lieberman went a step further and stated that he felt America should strip him of his citizenship so that his rights can be denied to him (did he even do his homework before opening his mouth on this issue?). But here's the rub. As I stated previously, by simply being in this country, you are afforded rights. Stripping someone of their citizenship doesn't mean that they don't have any rights. And all of this was before Shahzad was allowed due process. What sort of a precedent would this set? To me, it carries terrifying capabilities. For example, let's say that this blog is used against me in a valiant effort to enact the Patriot Act and label me a traitor to this country because I think the above representative and senators are verifiable wingnuts for their stance on this issue. So I'm arrested as a Pakistani sympathizer and all of a sudden, my entire country is against me. I haven't even been convicted of anything, I'm merely accused. But because the accusation is one that is so heinous in our country right now I should be stripped of my rights, strung up and flogged? What about "innocent until proven guilty?"
Now I'm definitely not on Shahzad's side but should we also strip child molesters of their citizenship and refuse them of their rights as well? What about people who abuse animals? Serial killers? Are we limiting this revocation to naturalized citizens or are we including those that were born here as well? Where does the line get drawn? Without the Miranda Rights, suspected criminals would not be able to retain specific rights because they did not know about them and without this caveat, the government would have free reign to unleash whatever terms they wished upon someone at any time merely by accusing them of a crime.
Thank God for the intelligence of our forefathers for having brilliant ideas (even if these are not always carried out correctly) that make our country so great. Yes, despite all of our problems and issues and grumblings about gas prices, we really do have it pretty good here compared to a lot of other places that we could live.
And because I live in America, I'm free to say the following: God bless America! And thanks to the many men and women who fight every day to continue my ability to live free. USA! USA! USA!
No comments:
Post a Comment