[Azred]

Originally posted by Rokenn: [i]from the article: -- The Supreme Court narrowed the right against self-incrimination Tuesday, ruling that police and government investigators can force an unwilling person to talk, as long as those admissions are not used to prosecute them. The 6-3 opinion undercuts the well-known Miranda warnings, in which officers tell individuals of their right to remain silent. It appears to allow more aggressive police questioning of reluctant witnesses in the hope of obtaining evidence. While a person's words cannot be used against him or her in court, evidence can be.

Do they think that any rational person is going to believe that admissions which are "agressively forced" will not be used in the prosecution's case? All the prosecutor has to say is "the suspect said *blah*", and even if the jury is instructed to ignore the comment they will remember it.

I wonder how aggressive they can be when questioning? "Oops...you got shot. That ambulance should be here in 20 minutes. I hope you don't bleed to death before then. By the way, do you have anything to say?" or "Tell us what we want to know and we'll make sure you don't accidentally fall down the stairs while fleeing from an officer...."

Bend it a little more, Supreme Court.