Talk:Miranda warning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Miranda warning is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
[edit] Article needs to Mention
This article needs to mention
- the British ones changed a while ago after the abolition of the right to silent
- how come we have them in Britain anyway? no supreme court to make them up here. Morwen - Talk 19:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What about Miranda and the Sixth Amendment?
The Miranda right actually come from both the Fifth Amendment right not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself" and the Sixth Amendment right "to have assistance of counsel for his defence." -Thrasher
No, the Sixth Amendment right is actually protected under a separate line of cases---the so-called "Massiah" right. It overlaps a bit with the Miranda Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Unfortunately, I'm too drowsy to look up the cases right now to explain the difference. --Coolcaesar 06:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The Sixth Amendment invokes the right to counsel upon the initiation of formal judicial proceedings. While Miranda provides a "right to counsel," its rationale is seperate from Sixth Amendment. As Chief Justice Warren writes in his seminal opinion, "[t]he circumstances surrounding in-custody interrogation can operate very quickly to overbear the will of one merely aware of his privilege by his interrogators. Therefore, the right of counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today." In other words, police interrogation is so one-sided that a suspect's privileges against self-incrimination would be mariginalized in the absence of a lawyer. --whyjackfan 00:15, 03 Dec 2005.
To my understanding Victor M. Earle was one of the attorneys that help create the "wording" of Miranda Rights?
[edit] Political Issue
Article should likely note this is becoming a political issue again, as some feel it interferes with law enforcement (mainly conservatives). There is speculation that any future Supreme court justice will be asked t heir opinion on the issue during confirmation hearings. See CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/confirmation.explainer/content.4.html among many others.
[edit] Adopted by Other jurisdictions?
Perhaps I'm being too picky but the statement that a requirement for Miranda-type warnings has been adopted in other jurisdictions, followed by a discussion of the requirements in England suggest that England copied the 1963 Miranda case. Of course, the right to silence in England is centurioes old and the requirement of a warning was made, certainly no later than 1912 when the Judges Rules were promulgated, saying they would strike out confessions obtained without a warning to the suspect that he was not required to speak. Should this be made clearer or is the fault mine? Avalon 09:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pop-Rock group of Spain
Famous spanish Pop-Rock group, their first album was "Ley Miranda", we can also found the second one "Escena segunda", their third album (2005) is "Lugares que esperan". They have a lot of tops charts, like "Despierta", "¿Por qué?" or "Los restos del naufragio". http://www.mirandawarning.net
[edit] Canadian laws not equivalent?
From the article:
Thus, under Canadian law, a person charged of a crime effectively has the same protections under the law as are provided by Miranda.
From Right to silence:
The right to silence is protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The right to silence protects an accused from answering questions that may be incriminating from the moment of arrest up until the accused is provided with legal counsel. Outside of this period there is no right to silence, which is distinguished from, and often confused with, the US right which persists after access to councel is given.
This distinction would seem to indicate Canadians do not have all the Miranda rights, since their right to silence goes away once they have counsel.
On the other hand, I can't find any mention of the actual right to silence in the cited Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, possibly aside from the basic "life, liberty, and the security of the person" phrase... and if this is indeed the phrase that protects one's right to silence, then how does it go away once one sees a lawyer?
So which article is right? – Wisq 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither is correct. The right to silent is absolute in Canada. It represents the fact that a criminal suspect maintains the absolute right to choose whether or not to speak with the police. When a suspect chooses not to speak to the police, his silence cannot be used against him at trial (see R. v. Noble) nor can any inference be drawn against him.
The Right to Silence is distinct from the Right to Counsel. Just because you have contacted a lawyer, the police are not then at liberty to compel a statement from a suspect. 99% of the time, a lawyer will advise his client to exercise his right to remain silent.--Kteskey 01:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsensical sentence
The paragraph:
The caution is a restriction on drawing adverse inferences applies, for example where the suspect has been denied legal advice, is You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence
makes no sense to me. Am I just misreading it or does it need rewriting?
[edit] Australia
What does mean the word "verbal" mean in: "...proving that they did not "verbal" an accused"?
[edit] You do NOT have the right
I saw an episode of "the 4400" that showed the arrest of a couple of terrorists. It went something like (not exactly) "You are being arrested as an enemy of the state. You do NOT have the right to remain silent. You do NOT have the right to an attorney etc.". I can find nothing of this variation in this article. Is it real?
- No, that sounds like Hollywood. Most Hollywood writers are young 20-somethings straight out of college with very little life experience, which is why their writing is so bad. --Coolcaesar 06:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Does anybody know the miranda warning for terrorists? I understand that they do indeed have different rights
[edit] What about the rest of the World?
I cannot shake the feeling that this page enforces a certain viewpoint on reader, namely, "US and other English-speaking countries ARE the territory of LAW and Civilisation, while we DON'T know ANYTHING about, like, Asia or Africa or former USSR countires". While I understand perfectly that it is up to us natives to write about our own rights, that still does not abolish the fact that most of other countries do have their equivalent of the right to remain silent and are NOT even mentioned. With maintenancce of the right being another question. Any law experts out there?
- Good luck finding any. Experts on comparative criminal law are rare. --
Coolcaesar 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Do you have a reference?
Is there a reference for the statement "Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language"?
[edit] Citations are a disaster
We need to go to a consistent citation system in this article. Right now we have a messy combination of the worst of Bluebook and California. I think we should go to Bluebook citations as footnotes. Any comments before I do this in a couple of weeks? --Coolcaesar 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dear Coolcaesar: Go for it. Famspear 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What's the normal interpretation…
…of "Anything you say can and will be used against you" (emphasis added)? Is this an example of swinging too much the other way to "make up for" people who assume the system will function in their favor, or what? I get the "can" part; it's the "will" part that seems just plain inaccurate. ("Your honor, I was nowhere near the scene of the crime." "Oh really? We're going to have to use that statement against you.") What am I missing? — Lenoxus 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "and will" is an embellishment added mostly for television. The police are in no position to make promises about the evidence a prosecutor will use to make his case. At the same time, a prosecutor would be foolish not to try and use a suspect's own confession against him. And even if the statement is ruled inadmissible, the prosecutor can still use it to impeach the defendant if he testifies.
- Having said that, it doesn't render the warnings legally defective if the officer deviates slightly from the Miranda formulation, so long as the substance of the warnings are delivered.---Axios023 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- The following quote is from the text of the majority opinion in MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, (emphasis added) -- Boracay Bill 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. It is only through an awareness of these consequences that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege. Moreover, this warning may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of the adversary system - that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest.
-
-
- Thanks, people. I think the truth is that my confusion was not with "and will", as I had thought, but with the phrase "anything you say." It would appear that that is in fact meant as a variant of the longer phrase "anything you say as a confession". I'll consider phrasing and inserting something in the article to clarify this for people who read it the way I do — given that "anything you say" oridinairly includes absolutely everything the defendent says, including "I do swear to tell the whole truth," and "Geshundheit, Mrs. Smith." But if I'm understanding the context of how the justice phrased it, the implied meaning is more specific. Perhaps this is an example of a situation where the current quoting of something goes a little to far in cleaving to every original word… — Lenoxus 03:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Right of arestee in France
The law Perben II have reverted the right of having an attorney at the first hour of custody. Now it is possible at the 20th hour of police custody, as previously. For the right to have a translator, i think Perben II law has changed this, but i am nost sure. Previously, the fact that a translator was missing was a reason for claiming mistrial. I agree with the fact that police says "you are under arrest for ..., the custody will last 24 hours, one time renewable for a 24 hours term, you have the right to call a relative, a physican, etc...", but not with the right to remain silent. However my experience on this last subject is limited to embbeded reportages seen on TV and speaches with police men. I think a specialist of french penal procedure should check the part about "miranda" in France.
