Quote:
Originally Posted by websiex
Ok, since I made the 'unconstitutional' remark, I assume you directed that comment at me. Now, I never said it was unconstitutional; I said that it is arguably unconstitutional. This means that there is no case law, but it could possibly be changed in the future.
(THIS IS ALL MY OPINION)
What I would argue is that something like this has never been done in the United States - with the mass media (NBC), a vigilante group, and government agents all working together to pubically humilate American citizens.
I'll begin with the possible Fifth Amendment problems surrounding this show.
In 1966, there was a landmark United States case called Miranda v. Arizona, which states that a person must be read his or her rights before any possible self-incriminating comments could be made by that person.
Now, on that show - the police DO read the person his rights -BUT- NBCs cameras are STILL ROLLING while the person is being interrogated. So, basically this guy is sitting there knowing the entire nation (+friends/family) will be watching him get drilled about solicitating minors online for sex.
Ok, so you'll say, "Well, he should demand a lawyer and get his day in court."
Well, I'd have to argue that the mental anguish of his family, friends, and the entire nation seeing this will make him start to try to defend himself (any human in a situation like this would). At this point, he is in a "mass media panic" and disregards his rights, so he will futilely try to save face by making up a story about not going for sex, or whatever the story.
At that moment when he is trying to save face, he is also giving the state evidence against him for the trial. Basically, he is taken to be interrogated right after Chris Hansen tells him he is on national television, and the guy is rightfully still upset and panicking, so he is just blabbing anything that can possibly make him look good (he doesn't realize he is already sooooo fucked).
So, the state gets all of this information against him while he is in this unique position of being interrogated in front of his friends, family, and the nation. There hasn't been anything like this before that I know of, so it still needs to be addressed in the courts.
To sum up what I just said, it may be arguable that the confessions are achieved through coercion, coercion by the international audience watching. I'll coin it "insaniae via populi". (Madness by means of the people.)
(This probably won't be ever be addressed.)
|
You've said all this in this thread already, and it has all been effectively destroyed point by point. Got anything new?
You may make a good defense lawyer one day, you certainly do think like one. Defense lawyers are great when the person they're defending is actually innocent or there are extenuating circumstances worth arguing for. But when the perp's guilt isn't even a question as it is here, when what they were attempting to do is so heinous it's unimagineable to most people, well... in this scenario you defense lawyer types are nearly as despicable as the predators themselves.
Try arguing that in an actual court, I guarantee you there would be a backlash against you and you would be labeled as defending the pedos. That's all I'm saying, and it's right. People are already saying it on this thread, think of what the whole of society would say if you took this to a courtroom.
Those poor pedos and their personal anquish. lol