Sinfest

mouse · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 15467 Location: under the bed

i can see where, in some cases, it might not be best to have the parent in the room when the police question a child (as in the case where the 9-year-old was apparently pressured into accusing her father of molesting her; the questioning came about because the mother was worried that the father might be doing so, so there could be a question about the mother's impartiality) - but certainly they should have some sort of advocate who can stop proceedings if they think the child is being coerced (and a two-hour interrogation of a 9-year-old certainly sounds coercive). one would think the school authorities might take this role, but apparently, one would be wrong.

it strikes me that this might also be a start at another look at police interrogation techniques and the contexts in which confessions are obtained. there was a case here, a few years ago, where a teenage boy was questioned for some hours without his parents' presence or even knowledge and ultimately confessed to his sister's murder. someone else was later found guilty of the crime (because, among other things, the sweatshirt he was wearing at the time of his arrest had the victim's blood on it), and i think the parents are suing - but anyway, there are a number of cases when the police have forced a false confession, often after hours of interrogation. children are quite clearly vulnerable to this, but so are adults. if the supremes take the case involving children, and rule they need protection, i wonder if it might have potential to be extended to adults, as well.

not a direction that law'n'order conservatives would want it to go, of course, but it's hard to defend grilling prepubescent children for hours at a time, even if it is supposed to be to help them.
_________________
aka: neverscared!

Oneponytoruleall · Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 3114

nathan · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 6269

I think mouse hits the gist of it. The nature of the inquiry - parental abuse - means you can't get parental permission ahead of time, but certainly someone needs to advocate for/supervise the child during interrogation. Beyond that, this is one of the few areas I think leeway must be given to the officials in charge.

Kids are unreliable and officials are trigger happy, but the alternative is ignoring genuine abuse. I don't know if there's any way to cut it that doesn't end up as a soup sandwich, except maybe to be aware of past trends in success/mistakes at that particular department and tighten or loosen the reigns accordingly. Ultimately, with something so subjective, it's as much a matter of personnel as policy.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust

Kilgore · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 2827 Location: Portland, Or

I'm sorry I missed the discussion about McDonald. To be fair, I was getting yelled at by very angry men at the time, and they weren't letting me on the internet.

At the risk of running back over old ground, the opinion is incredibly wonky. Even leaving aside the weird plurality resolution, the holding is so narrow that it provides almost no guidance for resolving future Second Amendment cases. It's actually very consistent with Heller in that respect, and I think the Court wrote it that way on purpose.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick

WheelsOfConfusion · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 11145 Location: Unknown Kaddath

FCC v. AT&T has been decided. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf

AT&T doesn't have a person's right to privacy to prevent FOI releases of documentation they've already turned over to the government.

E-boy · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:08 am Post subject:

Good. There is something fundamentally creepy about corporations having individual rights.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".

Usagi Miyamoto · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:36 am Post subject:

Congress needs to restrict those rights even further - corporations should have no rights to lobby, influence public policy on legislation or regulation, or make campaign contributions at all. That leads to nothing but corrupt legislative behavior and regulatory capture. The misuse of the 14th Amendment to extend Bill of Rights protections to bodies corporate has been the source of some wicked jurisprudence. The question of why any rights should natively inhere in something that is wholly a government fiat creation (that is, corporations as artificial persons) ought to give a logical justice pause. Not to imply that such are in great supply.

They do have a sense of humor though:

mouse · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 15467 Location: under the bed

although sometimes one wonders who the joke is on.

certainly congress _should_ restrict rights of corporations, but i strongly doubt that the lot currently in control feel any motivation to do so. they sure as hell don't want to limit campaign contributions in any way. and of course, as long as corporations can buy congressmen, congress is unlikely to write a law to stop that.
_________________
aka: neverscared!

Mizike · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 5120 Location: Iowa City

Even Hate Speech is Free Speech

Kilgore · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 2827 Location: Portland, Or

mouse · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 15467 Location: under the bed

yeah - this is one of those decisions that is irritating because it is right, but it benefits a group of absolute shitheads. i am also glad the snyders have help with legal fees - they already have enough pain, no need to add to it.
_________________
aka: neverscared!

Celaeno · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 2995 Location: Kzoo

100% agreed with mouse. It is, absolutely, the right decision, but goddamn, those are horrible people.

mouse · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 15467 Location: under the bed

way to get it totally wrong, margie.
_________________
aka: neverscared!

Thy Brilliance · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 3213 Location: Relative

E-boy · Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:14 am Post subject: