It is tough to know a bad guy got off. But I’d rather some bad guys get off some, then have District Attorney Nifong abuse such as in the case with the Duke Lacrosse players.

A good reply to Jerid though. In general, I’d tolerate some cases being over-turned on technicalities in order to keep a check on govt power as held by the police and prosecutors. But changing the Miranda rules 15 years later? And to new rules that are so vague as to create lots of new problems?

So my simple solution is to reduce the attention and time on Death Penalty appeals by having a “Life Sentence” really be a permanent life sentence, no probation.

An interesting post, and good discussion comments.

- The cops in this case were applying the law 15 years ago based on standards in place 15 years ago. Punishing them retroactively based on a court’s (IMO flawed) review of the case seems out of bounds.

- The punishment for wayward cops would have nothing to do with money. If they really do deliberately break the Miranda protocol, they should be prosecuted criminally, not civilly (that is just a lottery game), unless that breach causes an incorrect verdict and the falsely convicted perp to do time he should not have done. If the person really did the deed, the fact that he was not properly Mirandized is NOT a reason to turn him loose, but STILL a reason to go after the cop criminally.

- Garner’s liberty has NOT been violated. He is right where he should be — in jail. Hopefully he will ultimately end up in the chair. I am relatively sparing in who belongs in the chair, but he is one of them.

- The liberty interests of all those wrongfully convicted as a result of police misconduct such as improper Miranda, evidence suppression, etc. are affected. Garner’s is not. You can apply the results of a police error that nevertheless does not change Garner’s guilt to situations where it would affect someone’s guilt. I don’t see the conceptual difficulty of that, nor should the legal system, and I do not see how taking that approach jeopardizes constitutional protections.

By the account posted here, it certainly sounds like Garner should fry on the merits of what he did. Let’s just assume this guy is guilty as sin, and both you and I, GOPer and DEM, generally support having the strong arm of the law whack him vicious.

However, there’s a policy question here. Shouldn’t there be recourse against the police when they violate someone’s Miranda rights (of course, allegedly)? I mean, regardless of whether you support Miranda procedures or not, they’re in place…and until they’re overruled, we need to make sure they’re enforced.

So how do you get the cops to enforce Miranda if they know courts will uphold confessions and evidence obtained in violation of Miranda protocol? As far as I know, there’s only two widely accepted avenues for the courts to go down to officially discipline cops…a 1983 action for civil damages by party whose liberty has been violated by the action (Garner in this case), or suppress the evidence and confession on constitutional grounds.

A 1983 action doesn’t quite do the trick in most Miranda situations. Courts are hesitant to impose large fines that actually adjust behavior because they can be debilitating to police departments and community safety. Also, people are often willing to violate constitutional provisions if they know they can get away with it with just a fine. Finally, the folks that would bring a 1983 action are the same folks being prosecuted, and they’re already in jail (most likely focussing on an appeal), so there’s little incentive for them to bring suit in civil courts that aren’t going to get them released. So in the grand scheme of things, 1983 actions in Garner’s case are pretty worthless and have little impact on police behavior..

And that leaves suppression of evidence and statements…the same action you’re railing against in this post. Like I said, Garner sounds like he deserves the chair. But unfortunately, court procedure affects not just Garner’s case, but all cases. Are the liberty interests of all citizens greater than this conviction? Probably.

Now, I’m not addressing the other big issue you raised in your post…whether police officers need to ensure folks subjectively understand their rights. That’s a whole different can of worms… one that you can probably rightfully critique. I just hate to see knee jerk reactions in general against constitutional protections.

Carry on.