It didn’t, because wiser heads prevailed, and the suspect was treated as a criminal suspect under our criminal laws, instead of being treated as some kind of enemy combatant. If that course had been followed, he might ultimately have been released because you just can’t do that to a US citizen arrested on US soil. The question of his Miranda warning is a different one–I think they probably didn’t need to Mirandize him at all, because they have plenty of evidence, but presumably they didn’t want that issue to complicate any eventual trial.</p>
<p>I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding of the second point. If you fail to Mirandize somebody, he doesn’t get out of jail free. It just means that you can’t use his statements (or evidence derived from them) at his trial.</p>
<p>A friend of mine, mostly retired, does appeals for convicted murderers. One of his clients called him from prison after the bombings to make sure he was okay. I thought that was hilarious. But it shows: the difference is that this kind of act feels outside of the norm for crime. And since we all feel affected, though we actually are only tangentially touched if that, we all feel a sort of “shock the conscience” mentality. </p>
<p>I was reading recently about an article published in the Middle East that said Jews kill Christians and Muslims for their blood. This is of course the “blood libel”, which was invented in the Middle Ages but which fit the Christian - and now Muslim - imagery. It usually takes two forms, a reference to “practices” without specificity, like yesterday’s Iranian allegation that Jews practice “sorcery”, or the one about matzah being made with blood for Passover. That one at least connects Passover, Jesus and eating.</p>
<p>The point is that no one ever knows anyone killed for ritual purposes. Never. But those allegations “shock the conscience”. We must stamp out these demons because, see, look at the horrors they perpetrate! We must show no mercy for they are the devil! Burn their houses of worship! Tear their schools down! Destroy their homes! Kill them!</p>
<p>One irony in my life is that my last name is shared between a smallish group of Jews and a larger group of Lutherans. The material from the last paragraph paraphrases Martin Luther. That is why I refer to Martin King more than “Martin Luther King”. </p>
<p>When people talk about torture and taking away rights and hideous punishments, it reminds me of a picture of my wife’s grandfather’s family. He was the oldest of a large group of children, almost all beautiful girls. Every single one murdered. Every one of those beautiful, smart young women with blonde curls murdered.</p>
<p>So think about that when you want to take away rights. And when you look in the mirror, realize that evil lies within you. But you at least have the ability to change your opinions.</p>
<p>I agree that there are common misconceptions about Miranda warnings. Evidence obtained in violation of Miranda cannot be used against the accused, but that does not mean the accused goes free or that the prosecution cannot go forward. </p>
<p>With respect to treating the suspect as an enemy combatant, an argument could be made that risking the chance that this suspect might go free might be worth saving more American lives.</p>
<p>As you don’t know me at all Cartera, you have no idea how empathetic I am. And believing that we should not have to pay for a lifetime of incarceration for this admitted murderer has nothing to do with empathy.</p>
<p>Every state is a little different. An arrest warrant could have been requested after he was brought to the hospital and another 48 hours of interrogation…What is more important…what this terrorists knows, or what could be used against him in court?</p>
<p>Agreed. Feeling sorry for someone who has been manipulated by the religion of hate does not mean he or she should not die for killing others. I am so glad there is a federal death penalty. It is appropriate in this case for the junior terrorist.</p>
<p>I have no empathy for the young terrorist, none. Although I may at some point later if facts come out that would make that appropriate. But I still don’t support the death penalty. My reasons have nothing to do with empathy for the guilty.</p>
<p>My empathy is with the dead and those with shattered limbs and lives. None for the bombers whatsoever. They had great opportunities and chose another path. They sealed their fate–not the death penalty.That will just be a consequence they no doubt expected.</p>
<p>There are also very smart legal minds who disagree with the treatment of this bomber as a criminal. Yes, you can call names and dismiss other opinions, but the fact is that many things are complicated when a resident or a citizen takes up arms against this country.</p>
<p>All I have to know is the definition of empathy. I agreed you may be selectively empathetic. I don’t believe you can legitimately call yourself “truly empathetic” if you have empathy only for those you deem deserving of it.</p>
<p>Empathy and justice are two separate considerations/feelings. I feel empathy for all persons in prison because I know their lives are wasted and the government is wasting money that could be spent elsewhere if they had behaved better. I also feel that justice requires that those convicted of crimes service time in prison and those convicted of capital murder should be executed. Emphathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Justice is different from empathy.</p>