[lbo-talk] No rights for Tsarnaev?

[Wojtek S]

[WS:] I think it is far more complicated than that.  People may confess to
crimes they did not commit for various reasons, such as to protect someone
else, out of guilt or perhaps moral considerations.  For example, there was
a murder case of a young girl in Silver Spring some years ago, and the
father, who was a suspect, confessed.  However he did not do it, it was his
mentally ill neighbor who was caught some time later.  So why did the
farther confess? Apparently he was under a lot of stress before the murder
because of divorce and custody battle, so the fact that his child was
murdered just broke him, and he internalized the guilt.  The cops also had
doubts about his confession since afaik he was not tried.

Also in many cases people kill other people for "righteous" reasons, to
defend their honor, avenge real or perceived wrongdoings etc.  In such
cases, confession is a part of this whole deed, almost like in a church -
you did because you felt it was righteous thing to do and you want to let
everyone know that.

In any case, I think that reciting Miranda rights amounts to nothing more
than saying a prayer or a magic formula - its only value is symbolic.  A
premeditated cold blooded criminal knows perfectly well that his best bet
is to remain silent, whether the cops tell him this or not, and the people
who did it for emotional reasons are more likely to confess even if the
cops tell them that they do not have to.

I do not understand why there is even any discussion of it in the Tsarnaev
case.  The cops have plenty of evidence against him, they do not need his
confession to get a conviction.  I suspect that they mention it mainly to
piss off bleeding hearts, since their reaction to such statements is
predictable like bowel movement.

While we are at this topic, everyone is now speculating about the brothers'
motives, so let me add my two cents.  I think it might have been a contract
hit job for the Chechen mafia or jihadists.  The mafiosi or jihadists might
have been promised money by Salafist funders to stage an attack in the US,
so their recruited the Tsarnaev brothers as hit men.  The brothers might
have done it mainly for money or perhaps sense of obligation to their
"clan", not because they have been "radicalized" as the media suggest.

Wojtek

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Bill Bartlett <william7 at aapt.net.au> wrote:


> Not entirely. I am subject to the same media as other people, but often
> take a different lesson.  So presumably individual personality must have
> some influence.
>
> My guess is, the same kind of person who would probably confess to a crime
> they didn't commit, under the influence of interrogation by a determined
> authority figure (cop) would also be likely to be let the media tell them
> what to think. That is, someone with a weak mind.
>
> Actually, I think its probably that kind of person who is the normal and
> I'm a bit odd. ;-)
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
>
>
> At 6:41 AM +0000 22/4/13, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
>  You've left out one thing: what the public "thinks" is entirely
>> determined by the media.
>>
>> Joanna
>>
>
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>

-- 
Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."