Internet Readalong

[effex]

* We have an apartment! It is actually in the complex I was turning my nose up at a month-ish ago, it is amazing how much more appealing it is after a tour and also weeks of apartment hunting. The new lease starts up on the 11th and our current lease ends on the 26th, which gives us a nice bumper and also means we have to start packing, like, now.

* Almost, almost done with a finished draft of my LGBTFest fic - the goal is to have it done and out to beta by Saturday. Which means I have to find a beta, hmm. [eyes nepenthe and zanzando]

~*~

* More on the Gulf oil crisis - has a ton of information and links up that I strongly recommend looking through.

* This video - about proper booming techniques and BP complete failure to use them - has been making the rounds. Important bit starts at 1:57.

* On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court ruled that "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively requires them to speak," [Sotomayor, who voted against the measure] said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so." Yes. You must now explicitly invoke your right to remain silent - if you don't (if you, say, choose to physically remain silent), the police can assume you've waived that right and "can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information."

* Mary Anne Mohanraj, Guest of Honor at Wiscon 34, has her speech up on her website:

Because here is one truth I know --

The world is in terrible danger. You have been chosen, you are needed, you are each and every one of you the only one who can save it, if you will just be brave enough. And it will be hard. But heroism isn't about not being afraid. It is about being afraid, and doing the work anyway. Fighting for what you know is right. And I promise you this -- for every time you stand up for the cause you believe in, every time you break down one of the walls of fear to speak out, you will emerge stronger and braver on the other side. I found it incredibly inspiring. [stalks site until video goes up]

Comments

[ilyat]

I've already responded to some discussion regarding Burghuis v. Thompkins in twistedchick's journal, largely in support of the concept behind the Supreme Court's ruling. One thing that I did not mention there that perhaps I should have might help put some things into perspective:

Practically speaking, there will be no significant changes in how a suspect is interrogated in the wake of this ruling.

As it stands now, I am not aware of any agency that considers mere silence in response to questions as being an explicit invocation of the First Amendment. The suspect chose to not answer a single specific question, or ten specific question, or a hundred specific questions; that does not mean he is unwilling to answer the next one that is asked. A suspect may still continue to not answer specific questions during interrogation.

A suspect has always had the right of invoking the Fifth Amendment during the course of interrogation - even he has previously waved it, implicitly or explicitly. He may still do so at any time during the course of the interrogation.

Since 1966, a suspect must always be informed of his rights (the Miranda warning) prior to interrogation. He must still be informed of them prior to interrogation.

While I do believe that the Supreme Court has elected to make an example out of Burghuis v. Thompkins as a means to exercise dialog regarding some of the stipulations set in place by Miranda v. Arizona, I do not feel that the decision was incorrect to uphold the original ruling on the case in question. After reading some of the specifics with regard to Thompkins's interrogation, it appears to me that it proceeded without violating previous federal case law, the Fifth Amendment, or his rights as determined by Miranda v. Arizona case law. Some of the wording as a result of the Supreme Court ruling seems excessively verbose, but again I do not feel that it is going to actually change how interrogations and investigations are performed by law enforcement.


Incidentally, the Fifth Amendment has no clause in it that states a suspect has a right to remain silent - nor was there previous precedent in English common law prior to the Miranda v. Arizona ruling to support the specific wording of the Miranda warning. I support the Miranda warning, and I do so even knowing that there was no prior law that served to establish it.

[effex]

I'm about to go offline for the night, but I wanted to let you know I've read your comment and appreciate you taking the time to leave it. I'll hopefully, work schedule willing, have an actual reply for you sometime tomorrow.