Do you agree with recent SC ruling that a suspect should clearly state their invocation of their right to remain silent and in effect, halt their interrogation?

FOLLOW QWANZ:
Twitter

Vote or create polls. Send results to decision makers. Initiate change.

Total Polls 5,608

Total Votes 324,832

Do you agree with recent SC ruling that a suspect should clearly state their invocation of their right to remain silent and in effect, halt their interrogation?

Created by docker

Vote, Share and Send to decision makers

Votes: 30

Views:888

Comments: 8

Rate This Poll:

Share this poll

Yes, clearly stating that you're invoking your right to remain silent is the only unambiguous way of making sure that your Miranda rights will be protected.

No, wouldn't speaking up to say that you're staying silent sound counterintuitive? Especially since speaking is considered waiving mentioned right.

I don't know.

Add a comment

Yet another foray into a citizen's right for protection against police abuse. The Supreme Court has surprisingly ruled that only a clear spoken statement that you are invoking your right to remain silent will in effect, protect you from further interrogation where you just may implicate yourself (something that just might be in the constitution—oh yeah, the Fifth Amendment.) Though if only saying it would make it so, well in this case, it should. EXCEPT that speaking may be construed as the waiving of the right to remain silent.

Are you confused yet?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060101378.html