Miranda warning

Can anyone help me understand why a career criminal, who has had a Miranda Warning issued once, needs to have it repeated each and every time that person is arrested? And if such warning is not given that may be a basis for throwing out the latest arrest. How are those two statements logically related? Is it that our judiciary is of a mindset that repeat criminals are so
"inferior" mentally that it is only fair and right that they be "reminded" of their rights such as you would constatntly remind a child "don't do that"? Seems like to me that if a lawbreaker needs to have his/her rights so closely protected then perhaps it is true that the "fault lies not in our stars ... .

[paulgro]

Think of it as insurance. If for some strange reason you don't know you rights you know them when arrested. At the same time the case can't be thrown out of court because you claim you didn't know your rights insurance for the law...

[amr]

Part of the reason to read the Miranda at each arrest is to ensure consistency. Depending on the circumstances, the arresting officers may not know that the suspect has been arrested before. It's easier all around to mandate that the Miranda is read to each suspect for each arrest rather than looking up someone's arrest record (especially if the person comes from another state) and then determining if the Miranda needs to be read or not, and then somehow keeping track that the suspect does indeed know his/her rights. (there will be suspects that slip through the cracks, never knowing their rights)

As far as getting a case thrown out, the suspect may not be "deficient," but his/her lawyer can certainly try to argue that in court. I suspect the practice came about because somewhere a suspect successfully argued that s/he would have been found innocent if they had been read his/her rights. Once a legal tactic proves successful (i.e., sets precident) every other suspect and public defender will try to use it.

As paulgro said, it's easy insurance against getting a case thrown out on a technicality.

[BeetleJuice]

In Goergia, they seem to do things their own way.
A couple years ago, I was arrested on 20 counts theft by taking, a felony in Elberton. From the time I was arrested, until the time I was finally able to find a Bondsman willing to post my bail 8 days later, I was never given my Miranda warnings. Even when I was questioned in jail. I was never offer a lawyer, even after I asked for one.
Jeff, Andy, you may remember something about this case as part of it was all over the goergia television stations. Mid january 1999 I believe it was. A raid was performed on a "breeding" kennel and over 150 dogs were taken from the owner. I'm the one that turned her in to the Agricultural Dept. Her revenge was swearing out a warrent against myself and my wife. I was stupid enough to go back to get my dogs and was arrested.
The ONLY reason I feel I was arrested is due to the fact the she and the sherrif were "good friends" of which the lady (and I use THAT term VERY loosely) bragged about repeatedly.
Getting back on point though, the reason for Miranda is because pre-Miranda the cops were about getting a confession by any means. There were no checks and balances to prevent abuse of prisoners and anything said could be construed as a confession. Most paople at the time didn't know they could have a lawyer appointed for their defense and the cops weren't about to volunteer this information.
What it boils down to is you cannot be questioned unless you waive your rights to having a lawyer present during questioning. Any questioning done without Miranda or a lawyer present to represent you cannot be held against you and cannopt be admitted in court.

[RayH]

Always remember that Ernesto Miranda was killed during a subsequent armend robbery attempt. He was warned.