h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I like the entry, and you clearly know what you're talking about. I do have some suggestions for improvement, however. I got the feeling that that was why I was invited over here, so, off to business...

1) In the "What is Miranda" section, I think it would be a good idea to tell us a few lines about the case. Who was he? Why was he on trial in the first place? What was it about his confession that was perceived to be involuntary? It would make the "What happened to Miranda" part a whole lot more meaningful to the audience.

2) Don't use the first-person (I). This one isn't so much a suggestion, it's one of the guidelines for writing for the Edited Guide. The bit on the catch-and-release program can be rewritten for third-person rather easily, I think. As for the three times you read Miranda example, the article could probably do without.

3) The last paragraph left me confused. Why was the Fourth Circuit decision overturned improperly? What exactly, then, was the ruling by the Supreme Court? What impact did it have on Miranda rights?

Great entry! I only have one suggestion, but I feel it's important:

How about a "right of reply" type thing giving information on Miranda to those who might be arrested? It just seems that the bias is towards the law enforcement side of things, rather than citizens' rights.

I wonder if a community-based legal advice centre would have some information on what to do if you are arrested - ie Talk or don't talk? ... that sort of thing. You could incorporate it and make the whole entry far more rounded.

Keep up the good work, I look forward to seeing it completed.

Cheers
Rob

I'm not sure if I understand waht you mean by "Right of Reply".

I don't know how far I'd want to get into giving general advise about answering questions under Miranda. The issues are too throny and case specific. The only guideline I can think of is cooperate if you're innocent. It's possible that even that might get you in trouble. I think it's very unlikely that it would, but it's possible. The situation is made worse because cops have a bad habit of reading the warnings too often and to the wrong people.

For the guilty, there are too many variables to consider. There's not one good answer. If you clam up, you're going to draw a lot more suspicion, and if there are accomplices, they may put more of the guilt on you than you might deserve. If you request an attorney, things get really sticky. Generally, the investigation ends at that point and you go forward with whatever evidence is available.

My general inclination is that people should cooperate with the police. But then again, I seek the truth, whereas that's probably not in the best interest of most perps.

Probably the best thing to do is to ask the officers questions and to let them ask questions about the crime. Then decide which questions to answer. Even better would be to request a list of questions, and answer only those you want.

I'll see if I can get any ideas from nolo.com.

"My general inclination is that people should cooperate with the police. But then again, I seek the truth..."

Seems the underlying assumption is that the police seek the truth. That's a bit dubious... often they're in league with the crims (after all, they work in the same industry) or they need to find a quick result.

And that's why people need to know what *their* rights are with regard to their right to remain silent - not what the police's rights are when telling somebody...

Cynical? Maybe...

Rob

Yah, anyone will do in a pinch.

Okay.