Over on DFTCW, the following 1985 exchange from former Reagan Administration AG and anti-porn crusader Ed Meese is brought back to our attention (source: US News and World Report):
U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
WTF? So to be a suspect in any crime is automatic indicator as to that person’s guilt? I wonder, did the terms “jurisprudence” or “presumed innocent” mean anything to old Ed?