Letters: Miranda rights and wrongs

Re “The right to remain silent is still golden,” Editorial, June 24

The Times writes that when the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miranda decision — which requires arrestees to be quickly informed of the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent — was handed down in 1966, conservatives objected, just as they are now after the Boston bombing suspect was read his Miranda rights.

First, I remember the debate when this issue was before the Supreme Court. The biggest and loudest objections at that time were from law enforcement. It was not a major cause for conservatives.

Second, conservatives don’t object to Miranda warnings being read at all. Their concern is over Mirandizing people like the alleged Boston bomber or the accused Ft. Hood shooter — in other words, those accused, like enemy combatants, of committing acts of war against Americans.

John C. Vita

Huntington Beach

The Times missed the mark on why conservatives were against the Boston bombing suspect being read his Miranda rights.

It wasn’t about letting him incriminate himself enough to ensure a guilty verdict but rather about obtaining information on other suspected terrorists. At the time, it wasn’t clear if the Boston Marathon bombing was a stand-alone event or just the first in a series of terrorist attacks.

More exceptions in extreme situations could potentially save hundreds of lives. In addition, if proved effective, these practices would reduce the need for such large investigatory agencies as the National Security Agency.

Lucas Klein

Claremont

ALSO:

Letters: The ‘Where’s Snowden?’ game

Letters: Give USC a chance on the Coliseum

Letters: Trust the oil companies on fracking?