Republican Senator Convicted

[Shakeyhands]

it seems to me that the officer was trying to do two things, get him to plead guilty (nothing wrong with that, this is after all what his job is) and giving the guy the option to do it quietly with out a bunch of fuss and muss, i..e media circus at a court where it would have all certainly been played out very publically and in minute detail including details on his personal life...

Still seems to me that the Senator do the correct thing, unfortunately for him, the media, whose job it is to report on this sort of thing, found out.

[jdobbin]

Again, re-read the transcript. He reads him his rights in the transcript, *after* using intimidation and misleading information to persuade the guy to fess up.

If you are really having a hard time with this, I will get Oscar and Grover to explain "Before" and "After" to you.

What upsets me is not the fact that a sting operation was conducted in the washroom.

*Any* man, innocent or guilty, would give serious consideration to pleading guilty if they were concerned that the damage to their reputation or the questions about their character or the humiliation of answering such charges were worth more than a few bucks.

If these tactics are acceptable, then there is a decent probability that the officer can convince *anybody* to plead guilty to this charge. Which leaves it entirely up to the officer's discretion. Which is entirely unacceptable to me. While in this case the officer appears to have stung somebody who was, in fact, "cruising", the potential for abuse is obvious, and the only reason there's any scrutiny at all was the profile of the accused in this instance.

After reading the transcript, do you really not recognize the potential for a police officer to intimidate a completely innocent person into confessing?

I'm appalled that anybody who considers themselves "progressive" would approve of this sort of tactic.

I have seen the same transcript. What I should have said was that when he was taken into custody, he was read his rights. He was then interviewed and advised again of his rights when he was processed.

The commentary reported on the day the transcript was aired said that before the interview took place and the officer took him to the operations center, he was advised of his rights. He was advised again of his rights after the interview when he was sent for fingerprints and booking. I don't know that I have heard Craig is disputing his Miranda rights were violated. Do you have evidence of that or are you simply basing it on what you see in the transcript? From what was described by the reports on the news networks, Craig initially refused to go with the police officer and was advised he was being arrested and read his rights in the company of another officer.

I think one CNN broadcaster initially asked about the timeframe about the reading of the rights and was told by the reporter covering the story that when Craig was taken into custody that he was advised of his rights as is standard procedure before taking a suspect to the operations center interview room. I have never heard anything contrary to that ever since.

You are the only one I have seen in any forum who has indicated you believe his Miranda rights were violated.

Also, if you can't post without being rude, don't bother. Really.

It is possible that Craig will say that he wasn't advised of his rights before the interview but I haven't heard him make that argument in any statement he has made. His lawyer might argue that but it is more likely that he will was just ask to have the guilty plea withdrawn and and say the Senator wishes to plead not guilty.

I think I have repeatedly said the police should have independent oversight in regards to procedures and outcomes of investigations that come into question. I am appalled that you keep missing that.

I haven't seen a claim by anyone except you that the officer broke the fundamental rule of advising a suspect of his rights as he is being taken into custody.

Edited September 5, 2007 by jdobbin

[geoffrey]

I haven't seen a claim by anyone except you that the officer broke the fundamental rule of advising a suspect of his rights as he is being taken into custody.

I second Kimmy's position.

Listen to the audio. You get a different perspective than with the transcript.

[jdobbin]

I second Kimmy's position.

Listen to the audio. You get a different perspective than with the transcript.

I've read and listed to the audio of the transcript. CNN asked the night they played the audio if Craig had been advised of his rights before being taken into the operations center. The police report that was released the same day said he had. He was read his rights again as the interview took place as is standard procedure.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/

The senator initially resisted the officer's request to go to the police operations center, he said, but finally did. There, he was read his Miranda rights, interviewed, photographed, fingerprinted and released, the report said.

I have not heard anyone make the argument except here that Miranda was not read to the Senator before he was in that interview room. When they are in the interview room, they ask the question again so that it is recorded.

Edited September 6, 2007 by jdobbin

[kimmy]

I frankly don't care much if the officer followed the letter of the Miranda rules.

He could have informed him of his right to counsel 50 times and it wouldn't make any difference, if it was done in the same "carrot and stick" manner evident in the transcript.

Do you disagree that there's an implied threat raised repeatedly in the transcript? Cooperate with me and this will be resolved quietly, but call a lawyer and people will find out. Agree to my account of events and this will go quietly, but dispute my recollection of events, and people are going to find out.

Do you disagree that the officer could make this accusation against anybody he felt like and have a good chance of leveraging fear of public humiliation into a guilty plea?

-k

[Shakeyhands]

Kimmy, thats pretty standard technique for questioning.... Right, wrong or indifferent, the guy was treated just the same as everyone else would be.

[jdobbin]

I frankly don't care much if the officer followed the letter of the Miranda rules.

He could have informed him of his right to counsel 50 times and it wouldn't make any difference, if it was done in the same "carrot and stick" manner evident in the transcript.

Do you disagree that there's an implied threat raised repeatedly in the transcript? Cooperate with me and this will be resolved quietly, but call a lawyer and people will find out. Agree to my account of events and this will go quietly, but dispute my recollection of events, and people are going to find out.

Do you disagree that the officer could make this accusation against anybody he felt like and have a good chance of leveraging fear of public humiliation into a guilty plea?

As the Senator was taken into custody at the washroom, he was advised of what the charges were and his right to counsel. The Senator tried to leverage his position by presenting his Senate card and said "What do you think about this?" The officer was not going to be bullied by this implied threat. He instead took the Senator to the interview room where, accompanied by another officer and using a recorder, advised the Senator of his rights again.

The Senator waived those rights and what followed was standard police procedure. The threat of public humiliation is one such tactic used to get a confession. I think you have seen term "good cop, bad cop." The officer played both these roles in trying to get a confession.

I know a lot of people have sympathy for the Senator and think that either the police had no business staking out the washroom or that they did something wrong in getting a confession but professionally, legally and without bias, they treated the Senator as any other person accused of a crime.

Police work is often a dirty business and requires checks and balances to keep it from violating a person's rights in the service of the law.

The Senator, because of his position and belief that he could simply slink away from any accusation, waived his most important right: the right to counsel. The police thereafter simply did their jobs. It is possible that the Senator's attorney may find a legal loophole in how the police performed their jobs but I have not heard that raised as a possibility. It is more likely that the Senator will simply withdraw his plea and go to court and see if the evidence is enough to overturn the conviction.

I've thought all along that the Senator probably stood a better chance of overturning the arrest in court. It might be embarrassing but then the onus would have been on the police to prove a crime took place.

[buffycat]

The senator forgot the one really important rule when dealing with the police:

KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT

He should have said nothing - nothing at all - outside of 'Call my lawyer'.

[kimmy]

Kimmy, thats pretty standard technique for questioning.... Right, wrong or indifferent, the guy was treated just the same as everyone else would be.

I know a lot of people have sympathy for the Senator and think that either the police had no business staking out the washroom or that they did something wrong in getting a confession but professionally, legally and without bias, they treated the Senator as any other person accused of a crime.

I'm surprised that neither of you can grasp that this is exactly what I find most troubling about this.

Neither of you seem willing to address the simple question I keep asking: what if a policeman proceeded exactly the same way with a suspect who was innocent?

Answer that question honestly, and you'll see why I find this upsetting.

Police work is often a dirty business and requires checks and balances to keep it from violating a person's rights in the service of the law.

So, where are the checks and balances in this instance?

The Senator, because of his position and belief that he could simply slink away from any accusation, waived his most important right: the right to counsel. The police thereafter simply did their jobs. It is possible that the Senator's attorney may find a legal loophole in how the police performed their jobs but I have not heard that raised as a possibility. It is more likely that the Senator will simply withdraw his plea and go to court and see if the evidence is enough to overturn the conviction.

While he initially tried to "do you know who I am?" his way out of the situation, it was clearly not what dissuaded him from calling a lawyer once it became obvious that the officer was unimpressed by his status.

Clearly the senator was persuaded not to call his lawyer by the belief that just rolling over would make things go easier for him. And the officer was certainly encouraging that belief.

I've thought all along that the Senator probably stood a better chance of overturning the arrest in court. It might be embarrassing but then the onus would have been on the police to prove a crime took place.

They've created a situation where the accusation is more damaging than the punishment, disputing the charge is more costly than accepting the consequences. Calling your lawyer would cost you more money than paying the fine. Denying the charge would draw more attention to the accusation than simply agreeing to the officer's account of events. Under these circumstances, why wouldn't someone, even someone innocent of the charges, roll over?

-k

[Shakeyhands]

Crown Attorneys do this each and every day, they put plea bargains together that say if you pleade guilty to this and that we will drop this charge or that one, its really quite standard. Is it right or wrong, well I don't know, sometimes it certainly works out in the accuseds favour.

As far as proceeding that way if a person is innocent, sure they do, as they should. At the end of the day it was Craig that waived his right to counsel.

[jazzer]

Clearly the senator was persuaded not to call his lawyer by the belief that just rolling over would make things go easier for him. And the officer was certainly encouraging that belief.

-k

And just how old is Mr. Craig? How was he "persuaded" by the way? He agreed to plead guilty and I'm sure he had ample time to get legal representation if he wanted before his fine was due. He's a big boy now and has to abide by the consequences of his actions.

Edited September 6, 2007 by jazzer

[jdobbin]

I'm surprised that neither of you can grasp that this is exactly what I find most troubling about this.

Neither of you seem willing to address the simple question I keep asking: what if a policeman proceeded exactly the same way with a suspect who was innocent?

Answer that question honestly, and you'll see why I find this upsetting.

So, where are the checks and balances in this instance?

While he initially tried to "do you know who I am?" his way out of the situation, it was clearly not what dissuaded him from calling a lawyer once it became obvious that the officer was unimpressed by his status.

Clearly the senator was persuaded not to call his lawyer by the belief that just rolling over would make things go easier for him. And the officer was certainly encouraging that belief.

They've created a situation where the accusation is more damaging than the punishment, disputing the charge is more costly than accepting the consequences. Calling your lawyer would cost you more money than paying the fine. Denying the charge would draw more attention to the accusation than simply agreeing to the officer's account of events. Under these circumstances, why wouldn't someone, even someone innocent of the charges, roll over?

If I was arrested when I knew I was innocent, I would ask to speak to a lawyer. Period. End of story. As soon as my rights were read, I would be quiet because as they said, anything you say can be used in a court of law. What I keep hearing is that he was unaware that he had been arrested or that he was told of his rights when he was brought to operations center. This is simply not what has been reported.

In this instance, the checks and balances were that he was advised of rights and waived them. He was informed right away that he was being arrested in the washroom. He was told of his rights then and again when the interview took place. His check on the police accusation was getting a lawyer or saying nothing. His next check was to plead not guilty and fight the case based on the evidence. His final check is to retract his guilty plea and argue in court that he would like to challenge the evidence.

I'm sorry if some people feel it is better to try talk their way out of charges. If a police officer tells you that you are under arrest, it is best to let a lawyer do your talking for you. Embarrassing or not, it is better than the alternative of pleading guilty to cover it up. The Minneapolis Airport police were as good as their word though. The information on the Senator's arrest came from the Idaho Statesman newspaper looking into allegations of past incidents not from the police releasing the information as in one of their famous perp walks. A simple criminal check turned up the arrest in Minneapolis.

I don't believe the police did anything wrong in this case. I have not heard anyone make a legal argument that they were breaking the law on advising a suspect about not seeking counsel. I welcome some of the lawyers on this forum to weigh in on the subject. I'm not a lawyer but I have looked to see if there are any experts who think the arrest was a violation of rights and I have not found anything published anywhere.

[jdobbin]

It looks like Craig will stay in office till the end of his term.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134202/

MINNEAPOLIS - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig lost a bid Thursday to withdraw his guilty plea in a men’s room sex sting but defiantly vowed to finish his Senate term, prolonging a headache for Republican leaders already facing a tough political climate.

Craig had announced plans to resign his seat by Sept. 30 but wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea. He issued a statement Thursday on staying in the Senate shortly after Republican Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter relayed word that he had selected a replacement for Craig in the event of a vacancy.

“I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively,” Craig said in a written statement that disappointed fellow Republicans who have urged him to step down. Craig, 62, said he will not seek a fourth term in November 2008.

[bush_cheney2004]

It looks like Craig will stay in office till the end of his term.

Good for him....we can live with the misdemeanor if he can. Hell, Ted Kennedy killed somebody!

[jdobbin]

It would appear that some Republicans can't live with Craig's decision.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21147566/

WASHINGTON - Facing untimely resignations, an unpopular war and a troubling 2008 election landscape, Senate Republicans didn't need another headache this week.

But they got one anyway when Sen. Larry Craig vowed Thursday to serve out the last 15 months of his term, despite a court ruling that left intact his guilty plea in a sex sting operation.

The Idaho Republican's decision gives his GOP colleagues two unpleasant choices. They can resume pressuring him to leave, and risk being seen as disloyal politicians who go harder on alleged homosexual misdeeds than on heterosexual wrongdoings.

There is a third choice. They could support the Senator in his bid to stay and say it is all a misunderstanding.

[Rue]

The senator forgot the one really important rule when dealing with the police:

KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT

He should have said nothing - nothing at all - outside of 'Call my lawyer'.

You miss the point as usual. He prefers given his desires, to keep his mouth open. Its just he only opens his mouth when he doesn't think anyone can see him swallowing and that is why everyone finds him hard to swallow.

It is not his open mouth that has gotten him into trouble, its pretending he doesn't open it that has.

Now that is a mouthful.

[Guest coot]

I like how all the right-wingers keep referring to this as a "misdemeanor" and equivalent to a parking ticket. That sucking sound is their family values base going right down the public washroom toilet.

[daniel]

He should have done what other Republican's had done, plead ignorance. In his defence, Craig didn't know that officer wasn't gay.

[bush_cheney2004]

I like how all the right-wingers keep referring to this as a "misdemeanor" and equivalent to a parking ticket. That sucking sound is their family values base going right down the public washroom toilet.

That's right...same as drunken driver Gord Campbell....LOL!

[Guest coot]

That's right...same as drunken driver Gord Campbell....LOL!

No, drunk driving is worse. Especially when you smirk about it in your mugshot.

[trex]

i dont know why people go on about this republican senator, if he did it he would be a pervert in my opinion, but then why should he resign? its not surprising that a politician is guilty of hypocrisy.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, drunk driving is worse. Especially when you smirk about it in your mugshot.

Umm...yea...that was the point....congrats on getting it.

[Guest coot]

Umm...yea...that was the point....congrats on getting it.

But it's way worse than smoking pot in your own home. Republicans react to attempts to make pot possession a misdemeanor rather than a criminal offence by saying that's the wrong message we want to send to our children. Then they emphasize that cruising for gay sex in a public washroom is "just a misdemeanor." What kind of message are they sending to kids now?

[bush_cheney2004]

But it's way worse than smoking pot in your own home. Republicans react to attempts to make pot possession a misdemeanor rather than a criminal offence by saying that's the wrong message we want to send to our children. Then they emphasize that cruising for gay sex in a public washroom is "just a misdemeanor." What kind of message are they sending to kids now?

What's wrong with "cruising" for "gay sex" in a public washroom? As opposed to some other kind of "sex". I don't think that children would recognize the difference.

A misdemeanor is a criminal offence...a lesser criminal act, but criminal all the same.

I think the "Republicans" are right..possession of 100 kilos should be a crime.

[jazzer]

i dont know why people go on about this republican senator, if he did it he would be a pervert in my opinion, but then why should he resign? its not surprising that a politician is guilty of hypocrisy.

He even earned himself a spot in Idaho's hall of fame.

Edited October 14, 2007 by jazzer