# Can anyone explain the significance of not giving the Boston Bomber his Miranda Rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 20, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185 "2013-04-20T02:59:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/41 "2013-04-20T23:30:08Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > But there is ALSO a requirement that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed to arrest someone in the first place. If you don’t plan to put the person on trial, arresting them is extremely problematic, legally. You think you’ve discovered a loophole here but I assure you that you have not. What does Miranda have to do with arresting someone and putting them on trial? You can have probable cause for arrest and put someone on trial without ever being required to Mirandize them. Google, “DUI and Miranda”, most DUI defendants are never read Miranda because there is little reason for interviews in DUI cases. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/42 "2013-04-20T23:38:59Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > But there is ALSO a requirement that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed to arrest someone in the first place. Yeah. > [@](#): > > If you don’t plan to put the person on trial, arresting them is extremely problematic, legally. Lots of people get arrested and never go to trial. Arresting someone is the cop’s job; prosecuting them is the prosecutor’s job. > [@](#): > > You think you’ve discovered a loophole here but I assure you that you have not. I don’t think I’ve discovered anything. I think you are still reading something into the point I was making which I never said. Let me see if I can be more explicit: You can arrest, interrogate, and successfully try somebody _without ever reading them their rights_. If you do so, then what they said during the interrogation may not be admissible in court. But if you have other evidence (like, you’re charging them with blowing shit up and their house was full of a bomb factory) then they can be tried and convicted on that evidence alone. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/43 "2013-04-20T23:46:54Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > But there is ALSO a requirement that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed to arrest someone in the first place. If you don’t plan to put the person on trial, arresting them is extremely problematic, legally. You think you’ve discovered a loophole here but I assure you that you have not. If the police have eye witnesses, video of the crimes, and other forensic evidence, the prosecutor may not need to use anything in court that the suspect says after he is arrested. That is not a loophole, that is a fact. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/44 "2013-04-20T23:50:31Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > But there is ALSO a requirement that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed to arrest someone in the first place. If you don’t plan to put the person on trial, arresting them is extremely problematic, legally. You think you’ve discovered a loophole here but I assure you that you have not. People are arrested and never tried all the time. A pursuant trial isn’t a qualification to make a legitimate arrest. Probable cause is sufficient to arrest, but is not sufficient to convict. It is sufficient to try someone, but In the Robert Blake murder case at arraignment a judge warned the prosecution that they had no evidence beyond probable cause to try a co-defendent and he was promptly released. An prosecutor using reasonable discretion should not seek to try someone based on probable cause alone in most circumstances because it is such a low threshold. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/45 "2013-04-21T01:23:33Z")
Let’s not forget that 95% of all felony cases that are convicted are plea bargains, so what is admissible in court is generally not an issue. Folks should remember that _Law and Order_ and _CSI_ are fictional TV shows, not documentaries. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/46 "2013-04-21T01:35:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Let’s not forget that 95% of all felony cases that are convicted are plea bargains, so what is admissible in court is generally not an issue. Folks should remember that _Law and Order_ and _CSI_ are fictional TV shows, not documentaries. Yes, but whether or not statements are admissible factors into whether to make a deal, and how good a deal to offer. On the other hand, Sucessful suppression motions based on _Miranda_ are truly rare. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/47 "2013-04-21T01:36:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Let’s not forget that 95% of all felony cases that are convicted are plea bargains, so what is admissible in court is generally not an issue. Folks should remember that _Law and Order_ and _CSI_ are fictional TV shows, not documentaries. The plea bargains depend on what evidence will be admissible in court. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/48 "2013-04-21T02:40:28Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > The plea bargains depend on what evidence will be admissible in court. Sometimes. That is why I said “generally”. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/49 "2013-04-21T05:41:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If the police have eye witnesses, video of the crimes, and other forensic evidence, the prosecutor may not need to use anything in court that the suspect says after he is arrested. That is not a loophole, that is a fact. And not getting Mirandized didn’t save Miranda himself in the end. The case that established the Miranda warning to begin with didn’t establish that failing to give the warning was fatal to getting a conviction, only that it could result in statements made by the defendant under questioning thrown out. Miranda got his original conviction voided, but was tried again and convicted based on other evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/50 "2013-04-21T12:29:03Z")
So, to boil it down (let’s see if I have this correct): The authorities are concerned that, once they inform him of his right to remain silent, etc., he’s going to say “Oh yeah, I forgot about that! I ain’t saying nothing to you coppers! I want a lawyer!” Really? Mirandizing (sp?) him is going to inform him of something he doesn’t already know and cause him to clam up? Seriously wondering what I’m missing, mmm ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/51 "2013-04-21T12:43:49Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > So, to boil it down (let’s see if I have this correct): > > The authorities are concerned that, once they inform him of his right to remain silent, etc., he’s going to say “Oh yeah, I forgot about that! I ain’t saying nothing to you coppers! I want a lawyer!” > > Really? Mirandizing (sp?) him is going to inform him of something he doesn’t already know and cause him to clam up? > > Seriously wondering what I’m missing, > mmm Maybe it’s been mentioned above and/or maybe I’m all wet but… mightn’t it have something to do with whether he is treated as a criminal with all the related rights or as an enemy combatant and whatever that entails? Perhaps once they read him his rights they’ve crossed a line that they don’t want to cross. Wouldn’t want to give up the chance to water-board him down the road would we?! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/52 "2013-04-21T12:48:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Sometimes. That is why I said “generally”. If you are talking about whether statements made during an arrest and interrogation are admissible, then I agree with you. But it sounded like you were talking about all evidence. In that case, it’s always an issue whether the evidence police have against you is admissible or not. > [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > So, to boil it down (let’s see if I have this correct): > > The authorities are concerned that, once they inform him of his right to remain silent, etc., he’s going to say “Oh yeah, I forgot about that! I ain’t saying nothing to you coppers! I want a lawyer!” > > Really? Mirandizing (sp?) him is going to inform him of something he doesn’t already know and cause him to clam up? > > Seriously wondering what I’m missing, > mmm That’s about it. It might not sound effective, but it is an additional tool that law enforcement officers can take advantage of. It’s getting a lot of press because everyone understands Miranda Rights from watching Law and Order. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/53 "2013-04-22T14:37:01Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > Really? Mirandizing (sp?) him is going to inform him of something he doesn’t already know and cause him to clam up? If the things he says (in response to police questioning) before being read his rights are inadmissible as evidence in court, then he may be more willing (if he has a conscience) to disclose useful information, since it will not cost him anything. Once he’s been Mirandized, anything he says may hurt his defense, so even if he wants to help prevent further public bloodshed, he may be reluctant to speak, since it could hypothetically make it harder to defend himself in court. It’s not so much about whether he is aware of his rights, it’s this: **Before** being Mirandized: anything you say (in response to police questioning) can NOT be used against you in a court of law. **After** being Mirandized: anything you say CAN be used against you in a court of law. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/54 "2013-04-22T14:41:12Z")
The point of the “public safety exemption” is that (if the courts accept its invocation) the things he says _are_ admissible at trial even though he wasn’t Mirandized. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185.md?page=2)