Shouldn’t it be the default and not require the suspect/subject to actually ask for one? Has there ever been any attempt to make that the norm in any countries? I think the only question should be “do you have your own lawyer you like to use, or are you happy enough with the court-appointed one?”

I’m not even sure opting out should be allowed, but I’m open to hearing reasons why that would be a bad system, or indeed a worse system than the one most countries seem to have now. So many miscarriages of justice could have been easily avoided.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      14 days ago

      The Erosion of Miranda

      In Vega v. Tekoh, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in part, that the jury could not be required to find Tekoh’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated because Miranda warnings are not rights but rather judicially crafted rules, which opens the door for overruling Miranda altogether.

      The Vega decision will have a stronger impact on young defendants, the intellectually disabled, racial minorities, immigrants, and anyone unfamiliar with the criminal justice system and more prone to coercion.

      And this was in 2014.

      Imagine being Mahmoud Khalil right now and talking about the Fifth Amendment. You’re lucky if you can invoke the Suspension Clause.

    • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
      1·
      13 days ago

      The 5th amendment only applies before arrest and during court. You still have the right to silence after arrest, that is a common law right.

      Salinas volunteered to go to the police station (he wasn’t arrested), so he had no common law right to silence.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        2·
        13 days ago

        That’s close to what Scalia/Thomas argued but that’s not what the majority opinion says. They explicitly say you always have the ability to plead the fifth and have it not be used as evidence. And it’s true. You never have to self incriminate. But their argument is you have to make it explicit, which is frankly dumb.