We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation. Now considered standard police procedure, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you,” has been heard so many times in television and film dramas that it has become almost cliche.
The roots of the Miranda decision go back to March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old Phoenix woman told police that she had been abducted, driven to the desert and raped. Detectives questioning her story gave her a polygraph test, but the results were inconclusive. However, tracking the license plate number of a car that resembled that of her attacker’s brought police to Ernesto Miranda, who had a prior record as a peeping tom. Although the victim did not identify Miranda in a line-up, he was brought into police custody and interrogated. What happened next is disputed, but officers left the interrogation with a confession that Miranda later recanted, unaware that he didn’t have to say anything at all.
The confession was extremely brief and differed in certain respects from the victim’s account of the crime. However, Miranda’s appointed defense attorney (who was paid a grand total of $100) didn’t call any witnesses at the ensuing trial, and Miranda was convicted. While Miranda was in Arizona state prison, the American Civil Liberties Union took up his appeal, claiming that the confession was false and coerced.
The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, but Miranda was retried and convicted in October 1966 anyway, despite the relative lack of evidence against him. Remaining in prison until 1972, Ernesto Miranda was later stabbed to death in the men’s room of a bar after a poker game in January 1976.
As a result of the case against Miranda, each and every person must now be informed of his or her rights when in custody and about to be interrogated.
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings.
The language used in a Miranda warning is derived from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona.  The specific language used in the warning varies between jurisdictions,  but the warning is deemed adequate as long as the defendant's rights are properly disclosed such that any waiver of those rights by the defendant is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.  For example, the warning may be phrased as follows: 
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.
The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law. [Note 1] Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements as evidence against them in a criminal trial.
Anyone who has watched a television show about law enforcement has a heard a police officer read the suspect his or her Miranda Rights. After placing the suspect under arrest, the officer will say something similar to, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”
The wording of the Miranda rights may vary from the statement above, as long as they fully convey the message. The officer must also ensure that the suspect understands his or her rights. Should the suspect not speak English, these rights must be translated to make sure they are understood.
Miranda Rights were created in 1966 as a result of the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warning is intended to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions.
It is important to note that Miranda rights do not go into effect until after an arrest is made. The officer is free to ask questions before an arrest, but must inform the suspect that the questioning is voluntary and that he or she is free to leave at any time. The answers to these questions are admissible in court.
If the suspect is placed under arrest and not read Miranda rights, spontaneous or voluntary statements may be used in evidence in court. For example, if the suspect starts using excuses justifying why he or she committed a crime these statements can be used at trial.
Silence can be used against the suspect if it occurs before he or she is read the Miranda rights. For example, an innocent person would proclaim his or her evidence or try to give an alibi rather than staying quiet. The prosecution will try to use the suspect’s silence against him or her in court.
If you are being investigated for a crime and wish to remain silent before being Mirandized, you can inform the officer that your attorney told you to never speak to law enforcement without talking to him or her first. This looks less suspicious than simply refusing to answer questions.
The History of the Miranda Rights
&ldquoYou have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?&rdquo We have all heard this speech recited by one of our favorite TV or film cops. These are the Miranda Rights that ensure citizens being detained by police are aware of their constitutional rights. To explore the history of these rights, we have to go back to 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona.
In 1963, an 18-year-old girl was kidnapped, raped, and murdered in Phoenix, Arizona. After investigating the crime, the police got a lead from the victim&rsquos cousin. She had spotted a suspicious car driving by the crime scene. This car belonged to Ernesto Miranda, a 24-year-old high school dropout with a lengthy police record. Police went to Miranda&rsquos residence and he came into the station willingly for questioning. After a two hour interrogation, followed by a line up, Miranda signed a written confession to the crime. Printed on this confession was the statement: &ldquothis confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.&rdquo
Upon trial, this confession was used as key evidence in Miranda&rsquos conviction. After his conviction, Miranda&rsquos lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Moore worked to get the confession thrown out of evidence in the appeal trial, stating that his client had, in fact, not been informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney, and that his confession was not made willingly. This argument proved unsuccessful as the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the previous conviction noting that Miranda had been fully aware of his rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union then got involved. Seeing this as an infringement on Ernesto&rsquos constitutional rights, they took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Lawyers argued that by not informing Ernesto of his rights prior to interrogation, police were denying him his Sixth Amendment rights which ensure the rights of criminal defendants and the right to an attorney. They also argued Miranda was denied his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The cornerstone of the argument was that Miranda was not informed of his rights and therefore, the confession lost credibility, was not obtained legally, and should be thrown out of his case.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Miranda&rsquos conviction on the grounds that he had been denied his rights. It was in this ruling that Chief Justice Earl Warren outlined a procedure to be used by police officers to guarantee that all those detained are aware of their rights protected under the United States Constitution. Thus, the Miranda Rights were born. Police officers began carrying cards with the Miranda Rights on them and reading them word for word to those arrested.
As for Ernesto Miranda, he was retried again without his signed written confession. Ultimately, the evidence of the case and his ex-girlfriend&rsquos testimony that outlined every detail Miranda confided in her about the case sealed his fate. Ernesto was convicted yet again and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. In December 1975, he was let out on parole. Just over a month later he was fatally stabbed in a bar fight in Phoenix. Suspects were detained in the case and read their Miranda rights. After learning of their right to remain silent, all suspects refused to answer police questions, and in a rather poetic ending, no one was ever convicted for Ernesto Miranda&rsquos murder.
The History of the Miranda Rights on Arrest
The history of the Miranda Warning dates back to 1966 when a landmark case in the U.S. Supreme Court established the safeguard that suspects must be informed of their rights when they are placed under arrest.
Before 1966, police used a frightening array of interrogation methods that were once known as undergoing the “third degree.”
The Miranda Rights have provided a safeguard against police interrogation for the last 50 years.
The case of Miranda v. Arizona was decided on June 13, 1966. Ernesto Miranda, the defendant, was accused of robbery, rape, and kidnapping. He confessed to the crimes during police interrogation.
The case was appealed amid concerns Miranda’s Fifth Amendment Rights had been violated. When Miranda was arrested in 1963, police officers questioned him over a kidnapping and a rape.
A written confession was obtained after two hours of interrogation. The written confession was admitted into the original trial even though the defense attorney objected and police officers admitted they had not advised the defendant of his right to have an attorney present.
Miranda’s conviction was later overturned due to the allegedly intimidating police interrogation methods. A second trial was ordered which brought in witnesses and other evidence.
Miranda was again convicted of the crimes. His trial was, however, deemed to be fair, and the original conviction was upheld.
The Miranda Rights became consolidated after another trial. In 1964 the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, established a suspect has the right to legal counsel being present during police interrogation or to consult with a lawyer before being questioned by police officers if the officer intends to use answers against the suspect at a trial. The right to an attorney was established if a defendant is detained and questioned against his or her will.
California deputy attorney general Doris Maier and district attorney Harold Berliner provided finalized text for the Miranda Warning in 1968.
Before the Miranda Warning was established by the U.S. Supreme Court, confessions only had to be voluntary on the part of the suspect. Police faced a difficult situation because defendants would often claim at trial that they were not of sound mind when they gave their confession.
The Miranda Warning clearly explains the options of the defendant and makes it clear he or she does not have to say anything but any information they do give can be used against them. The Miranda Warning is used across the United States, although its wording varies from state to state.
The Miranda Warning is important because it make a defendant’s rights crystal clear and establishes the right to legal counsel.
At Abdallah Law we recognize the importance of a defendant’s rights in Illinois. If you or a loved one has been charged with a criminal offense, please schedule a free consultation via our contact form.
Results of Miranda v. Arizona
” Known as the Miranda warnings, these guidelines included informing arrested persons prior to questioning that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them as evidence, that they have the right to have an attorney present, and that if they are…
Rights of accused
…also decided that at the time of his arrest the accused must be notified of both this right to counsel and the right not to answer any questions that might produce evidence against him (see Miranda v. Arizona). Both rights were introduced to prevent the police from extracting involuntary confessions…
…to suspects, known as the Miranda warnings, was established in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Failure to advise a suspect of those and other rights can result in the rejection of a confession as evidence.
…United States, where, under the Miranda v. Arizona ruling of 1966, the defendant’s statements will be excluded from evidence if he is not specifically warned of his right to remain silent before interrogation while in police custody. In most countries, evidence of a confession is admissible in court unless the…
The Miranda Rule
The Miranda rule, which the Supreme Court recognized as a constitutional right in its 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, requires that suspects be informed of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights "prior to interrogation" if their statements are to be used against them in court.
In essence, to be "Mirandized" is to be "read your rights."
In 1984, the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the Miranda rule in its decision New York v. Quarles which determined that if there's an imminent threat to public safety, suspects can be questioned about the threat before they are read their rights and their statements can still be used against them.
Recently, in the wake of two failed terrorism attacks, Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that he and the Obama administration will be asking Congress to “modernize” and “clarify” the public safety exception of the Miranda warning. However, there is no evidence that Miranda has obstructed the government from obtaining info from arrested suspects in terrorism cases and Attorney General Holder himself has said that terrorism suspects provided info to the FBI after being informed of their right to remain silent.
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly rejects the proposal as unconstitutional and is urging both the attorney general and Congress to keep their hands off Miranda.
Neither the reasons nor the history behind the right to silence are entirely clear. The Latin brocard nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare ('no man is bound to accuse himself') became a rallying cry for religious and political dissidents who were prosecuted in the Star Chamber and High Commission of 16th-century England. People coming before these tribunals were forced to make the ex officio oath by which they swore to truthfully answer the questions to be put before them without knowing of what they were being accused. This created what has been termed the cruel trilemma whereby these accused were forced to choose between committing the mortal sin of perjury (if they lied under oath to protect themselves), harsh punishment for contempt of court (if they refused to answer), or betraying their "natural" duty of self-preservation (if they told the truth to honour their oath). Sir Edward Coke's challenge to the ecclesiastical courts and their ex officio oath is seen as the origin of the right to silence. With his decision that common law courts could issue writs of prohibition against such oaths and his arguments that such oaths were contrary to the common law (as found in his Reports and Institutes), Coke "dealt the crucial blow to the oath ex officio and to the High Commission". 
After the parliamentary revolutions of the late 17th century, according to some historical accounts, the right to silence became established in the law as a reaction of the people to the excesses of the royal inquisitions in these courts. The rejection of the procedures of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission eventually resulted in the emergence of the principle, according to US jurist and law of evidence expert John Henry Wigmore, "that no man is bound to incriminate himself, on any charge (no matter how properly instituted), or in any Court (not merely in the ecclesiastical or Star Chamber tribunals)". It was extended during the English Restoration (from 1660 on) to include "an ordinary witness, and not merely the party charged".
However, the right to silence was not always a practical reality for all accused in the English courts for some period afterwards. With limited access to legal counsel (often depending on the social status of the accused), a shifting standard of proof, and a system generally distrustful of silent defendants, a criminal accused who remained silent was often believed to be guilty and got sentenced. Nevertheless, it remained a basic right available to the accused and has been an accepted practice over the past few centuries. In England, the practice of judicial questioning of accused persons at trial (as distinct from questioning prior to trial), did not really disappear until well into the 18th century, but by the 19th century, the accused were not allowed to give evidence on oath even if they wanted to – also said to be a reaction to the inequities of the Star Chamber and High Commission.
In countries formerly part of the British Empire (such as Commonwealth nations, the United States and the Republic of Ireland) the right to silence has remained enshrined in the common-law tradition inherited from England, although it no longer applies in England and Wales, where remaining silent can be considered a sign of guilt by juries. NB Scots law, which is not derived from English law but wholly separate, still upholds the full right to silence. In the US, the right existed prior to the American Revolution. However, it was considered one of the most important safeguards protecting citizens against arbitrary actions of the state, and was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, along with the words "due process", which was first mentioned in a statute of Edward III in 1354 and contains similar wording to the Fifth Amendment.
The right to silence spread to many nations of the British Empire. The two different but diverging paths along which these rights evolved and operate in Anglo-American jurisprudence (one through rights expressed in an entrenched constitution, the other in Acts of Parliament specifying rights or protections at common law) can be seen today in Commonwealth nations like New Zealand, where police officers are still required at common law to issue "Miranda-style" warnings (but which are completely unrelated to the US Miranda warning ruling) and inform arrested persons that they do not have to answer any questions but that whatever they do say (or do) can be used in court as evidence. The police must also determine whether the arrested persons understand these rights. Any failure to do so can jeopardize a criminal prosecution. While differing slightly from the wording used in the US, the intent is identical and comes from the inherited tradition of law. However, in Australia for instance, anything said by the accused under police questioning while in custody will generally not be accepted into evidence unless it is corroborated, generally by audio or video record. Australian police all wear chest cams as part of their standard issue, and turn them on with every interaction, so that they record and provide such evidence.
As in the US, suspects in some Commonwealth countries are also entitled to have counsel present during questioning. In the United Kingdom, laws introduced, have the suspects told they have the right to remain silent, but are now also cautioned that anything they do not reveal in questioning, but later rely upon in court may harm their defence. In other words, in some cases inferences can be drawn. The right to counsel, which also became increasingly entrenched in the US following the American Revolution, gave defendants a practical method of mounting a defense while remaining silent, and the development of the modern police force in the early 19th century opened up the question of pretrial silence for the first time. The key American case of Bram v. United States  paved the way for the right to be extended to pretrial questioning, and the practice of "Miranda warnings" became established in the US and elsewhere following the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966.
While initially alien to inquisitorial justice systems, the right to silence spread across continental Europe, in some form, throughout the late 20th century, due to developments in international law which had an increasing universalisation of certain due process protections.
Warnings of a right to remain silent are given in approximately 108 nations around the world. 
Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence,  but it is broadly recognized by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right and a part of the privilege against self-incrimination.  In general, criminal suspects in Australia have the right to refuse to answer questions posed to them by police before trial and to refuse to give evidence at trial. However a person must provide their full name, address, place of birth, and date of birth if asked to by police. No other question has to be answered. As a general rule judges cannot direct juries to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's silence (Petty v R) but there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in cases which rely entirely on circumstantial evidence which it is only possible for the defendant to testify about (Weissensteiner v R). This exception has been abolished in Victoria by sections 42 and 44 of the Jury Directions Act 2015. The right does not apply to corporations (EPA v Caltex).
Within Australia, the right to silence derives from common law. The basic position amongst the states is that neither the judge nor the jury is permitted to draw any adverse inference about the defendant's culpability, where he/she does not answer police questions [RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620 . overturning Jones v Dunkel  101 CLR 298]. While this is the common law position, it is buttressed by various legislative provisions within the states. For instance s.464J of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and s.89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
However, s89A of the Evidence Act (NSW) operates to allow adverse inferences to be drawn from a failure to mention, when questioned, something which the subject later relies upon in Court and which he/she ought reasonably have been aware of at the time of questioning. This inference can only be drawn if the subject has been given the special caution, which is a caution in addition to the usual caution and the subject consults with an Australian Legal practitioner in persona so as to fully understand the effect of the special caution. In NSW a subject has the right to a lawyer being present in a police interrogation but they do not have the right to have a lawyer provided for them, therefore a lawyer will only attend if the subject can afford private legal counsel. Therefore, the subject can prevent the invocation of s89A by receiving legal advice over the phone or choosing not to have a lawyer present (assuming they can afford one).
It has also been upheld by the High Court in the case of Petty v R (1991) 173 CLR 95. However, where a defendant answers some police questions, but not others, an inference may sometimes be drawn about the questions he refused to answer. (See Coldrey, below.)
Where a defendant refuses to speak to the police, but then speaks to an undercover member of the police, the court is likely to exclude that evidence to ensure that the police do not avoid their limitations. However, if a defendant speaks to a person who is not a member of the police, and who is fitted with a listening device, that evidence would be admitted.[Queen v Swaffield Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR]
Australian research indicates that very few suspects actually refuse to speak. Stevenson's research (see below for citation) indicates that only 4% of suspects who are subsequently charged and tried in the District Court of New South Wales in Sydney remain silent during interviews. The Victorian DPP found that 7–9% of suspects refused to answer police questions.
A number of states have conducted enquiries into the adoption of the English changes set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.    All states have rejected such change. As the NSW Report said:
It is reasonable that innocent persons faced with a serious accusation might wish to consider their situations carefully before making any disclosure, especially where the circumstances appear suspicious but it cannot be assumed that they are rational and articulate. In many cases, suspects may be emotional, perhaps panicked, inarticulate, unintelligent, easily influenced, confused or frightened or a combination of these. They may be unable to do themselves justice. Such persons may be well advised to hold their peace, at least at an early stage. They may, of course, have something to hide, but that something may simply be shameful and not a crime, or it may implicate others for whom they feel responsible. The supposition that only a guilty person has a reason for not speaking freely to investigating police is an unreasonable assumption.
It is also important to note that anything said to an Australian police member should be corroborated, especially by way of video or audio tape. If it is not so corroborated it will be admitted only under exceptional circumstances, S.464H (2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), and where the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, justify the reception of the evidence, S.464H (2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). While initially the police were insulted by this ruling most have now come to find it useful as a way of proving that they did not invent a false, verbal confession, never made by an accused (a practice called "verballing" an accused).
There are numerous statutory abrogations of the right, particularly in the area of bankruptcy. It is also not available to witnesses testifying before a Royal Commission. There are also abrogations of the right in recent Federal anti-terrorism and Victorian organised crime Acts.  Each of these acts set up coercive questioning regimes which operate outside the normal criminal processes. Direct testimonial evidence gained from this coercive questioning cannot be used in any subsequent criminal trial of the person providing the evidence, however a witness who testifies in his defense at a subsequent criminal trial who provides a different testimony to that during the questioning may face prosecution for perjury.
New South Wales Edit
The state of New South Wales passed the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013  which allows the judiciary to direct the jury to draw unfavourable inferences against a defendant who failed or refused to mention a fact during police questioning that they later rely on in court in a bid to be found not guilty.  The law strictly applies to those over the age of 18 and who have an Australian legal practitioner physically present and available at the time of questioning. The change is designed to reflect reforms made in the United Kingdom in 1994 and only applies to indictable offences that carry a penalty of five or more years imprisonment. The introduction of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013 sparked some controversy and concern amongst legal scholars and practitioners. 
The current caution used in New South Wales is:
You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?
The current caution used in Queensland is:
Before I ask you any questions I must tell you that you have the right to remain silent.
This means you do not have to say anything, answer any question or make any statement unless you wish to do so.
However, if you do say something or make a statement, it may later be used as evidence. Do you understand?
Article 33 of the Constitution of Bangladesh discusses the rights of the arrested and detained no right to silence is mentioned either in the Constitution  or the Bangladesh Penal Code,  except in Article 35(4) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from self-implication.   To facilitate protection from self-implication, Bangladesh Penal Code makes an exception in cases of confessions, in which case, the Magistrate obtaining a confession under Section 164 must explain the confessor's right to silence, and must attest to the fact that the rights of the confessor were read out to him and explained, and the confessor waived his right of silence. 
Article 33 of the Constitution of Bangladesh compels arresting authorities to inform the accused of the accusations brought against him before he is detained if he is male,  and that the detained must be presented to the nearest court within 24 hours.  Exceptions to this rule include preventive detention and the arrest of an enemy alien.  Right to counsel is an inalienable right, but the arresting officer need not explicitly state it to the detained.
Article 35(4) of the Constitution protects individuals from self-implication.  Therefore, warnings must be read out to the detained man (but not to women) if he wants to voluntarily confess to the charges in this case, a Magistrate must read and explain the confessor's right to silence and protection from self-implication, and attest to the fact that the rights of the confessor were read out to him and explained, and the confessor waived his right of silence. 
In Canada, the right to silence is protected under the common law confessions rule, and section 7 and section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The accused may not be compelled as a witness against himself in criminal proceedings, and therefore only voluntary statements made to police are admissible as evidence. Prior to an accused being informed of their right to legal counsel, any statements they make to police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence. After being informed of the right to counsel, the accused may choose to voluntarily answer questions and those statements would be admissible.
These rights to silence exist only when the suspect is knowingly dealing with a person in authority. When the subject is unaware he is dealing with the police, such as in the case of an undercover operation, these protections do not exist unless the authority figure actively elicits a statement. Statements made to police officers during undercover operations almost always comply with the confessions rule unless the conduct of the police was deemed so egregious that it would shock the community. However, section 7 rights might still become implicated in the case of elicitation, after which a court could only admit the statement if it's satisfied that it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Under the Charter, an arrested person has the right:
- To be informed promptly of the reasons therefor.
- To retain and instruct counsel without delay and be informed of that right.
- To have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
The Canadian Charter warning reads (varies by police service): "You are under arrest for _________ (charge) do you understand? You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. We will provide you with a toll-free telephone lawyer referral service, if you do not have your own lawyer. Anything you do say can and will be used in court as evidence. Do you understand? Would you like to speak to a lawyer?" (See: R. v. Hebert  2 S.C.R. 151.)
I am arresting you for (charge). It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer you want. There is a 24-hour telephone service available which provides a legal aid duty lawyer who can give you legal advice in private. This advice is given without charge and the lawyer can explain the legal aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number. Do you understand? Do you want to call a lawyer? You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence in court.
(See: Brydgesa fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (s. 11(d).) Section 14 of the Charter further provides that a translator must be made available so that the person can understand the proceedings against them. This right to a translator extends to the deaf. In Quebec, the Charter warning is read in Canadian French. In New Brunswick, and Ottawa the warning is read in either English or French, and the officer is required to ask the person's language of preference before issuing the warning.
While Section 10b of the Charter guarantees the right to be provided legal counsel, Canadian law only entitles criminal suspects under the age of 18 to have counsel actually be present throughout the entire interrogation. Once an adult suspect has asserted their right to counsel, the police are obliged to hold off in attempting to obtain evidence until the suspect has had a reasonable opportunity to contact legal counsel, however after that opportunity has been exhausted there is no guarantee of further access until the interrogation is over. Also, in Canada even if the suspect directly asserts his decision to remain silent, the police may continue to interrogate them. There is no automatic exclusion of evidence obtained after such an assertion, however it risks breaching the confessions rule if a court finds that it created reasonable doubt to whether the confession was obtained under "oppressive conditions", a determination which is made upon the totality of evidence.
A leading case on the right to silence in Canada is R. v. Singh (163 C.R.R. (2d) 280), in which a person in police custody invoked his right to silence 18 times yet was continually questioned. In a 5-4 majority, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that there was no ancillary right under section 7 to have the police stop questioning a suspect after the asserted their right to silence. The court did, however, acknowledge that repeated police questioning after a defendant has asserted their right to silence raises doubts regarding the admissibility of further evidence under the confessions rule, though the applicant never brought that claim before the Supreme Court. Another Supreme Court case, R. v. Hodgson, clarified that the right to silence only applied to the state and could not be used to exclude confessions made to private actors.
Although an accused has the right to remain silent and may not be compelled to testify against himself, where an accused freely chooses to take the witness box and testify, there is no further right to silence and no general restriction on what kinds of questions they may be required to answer. Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that witnesses may not have any incriminating evidence they gave as testimony used against them in separate proceedings. In effect, a person can be compelled to give involuntary self-incriminating evidence, but only where that evidence is to be used against a third party.
In the past most cases, except for certain sex offences or where the victims were children, spouses could not be compelled to testify against each other, however after Bill C-32, The Victim's Bill of Rights Act, this is no longer the case. However, spouses retain the right to assert privilege, and to refuse to answer questions about communications during the marriage.
Mainland China Edit
The right of silence is not guaranteed by law in China. Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Law states that "The criminal suspect shall answer the investigators' questions truthfully, but he shall have the right to refuse to answer any questions that are irrelevant to the case."  But since the 1996 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 15 states that "It shall be strictly prohibited to extort confessions by torture, gather evidence by threat, enticement, deceit, or other illegal means, or force anyone to commit self-incrimination." In 2012 the law was also re-amended to include clauses that protect human rights.  China has recognized the right against self-incrimination and forced confessions are prohibited by law. The signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998, also guarantees Chinese citizens the right against self-incrimination, however the treaty has not been ratified in China.
Czech Republic Edit
The Czech Republic protects the right to silence by two clauses in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. Article 37, clause 1 states that "everyone has the right to refuse a statement if he/she would cause risk of prosecution of himself/herself or a close person". In Article 40, clause 4, it is stated that "an accused person has the right to refuse a statement he/she must not be deprived of this right in any way". 
European Union Edit
Within the European Union, a gradual process of harmonising the laws of all the states of the Union has resulted in the adoption a common letter of rights that will apply to everyone across the European Union.  The agreed law—also known as "the Reding Rights" taking the name of the EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who has proposed and negotiated the measure to become law across the entire European Union—will mean that suspects in the European Union will once detained receive a "Letter of Rights listing their basic rights during criminal proceedings". 
The European law ensures that people suspected of a criminal offence receive adequate information about their basic rights during criminal proceedings. These are the right to a lawyer to be informed of the charge to interpretation and translation for those who do not understand the language of the proceedings the right to remain silent and to be brought promptly before a court following arrest.
In particular, the law includes five innovations:
Suspects will be informed of their rights following the arrest
They will be given a "letter of rights" spelling out their rights in writing
The letter of rights will be easy to understand, without legal jargon
It will be made available in a language the suspect understands
It will contain practical details about the person's rights.
These rights are contained in a letter of rights—"the Reding Rights"—a printed document given to suspects after they are detained and before interrogation.  The European Union law, proposed in July 2010 by the European Commission, was adopted by the European Parliament and Council in December 2011. The European Union Directive was published officially on 1 June 2012 in the Official Journal of the European Union L 142, 1 June 2012.  It became operational across the European Union by 2 June 2014. 
European Convention on Human Rights Edit
The concept of right to silence is not specifically mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights but the European Court of Human Rights has held that
the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognized international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. 
In France, any person brought in police custody ("Garde à vue") must be informed of the maximal duration of the custody, and a number of rights, in a language that this person understands. Among these rights are: the possibility of warning a relative or employer of the custody, that of asking to be examined by a physician, and that of discussing the case with a lawyer .
The French Code of Criminal Procedure  (art. L116) makes it compulsory that when an investigating judge hears a suspect, he must warn him that he has the right to remain silent, to make a statement, or to answer questions. A person against which suspicions lay cannot legally be interrogated by justice as an ordinary witness.
At the actual trial, a defendant can be compelled to make a statement. However, the code also prohibits hearing a suspect under oath thus, a suspect may say whatever he feels fit for his defense, without fear of sanction for perjury. This prohibition is extended to the suspect's spouse and members of his close family (this extension of the prohibition may be waived if both the prosecution and the defence counsel agree to the waiver).
Since 15 April 2011,  any person held by the police has new rights:
- The person is immediately informed by a police officer, or in the presence of one, in a language that he can understand, that (Article 3):
- he has the right to ask assistance of a lawyer (63-3-1 to 63-4-3 of Penal Procedure code)
- he has the right, after answering questions about his identity, to answer other questions or to remain silent.
Witnesses under indictment (or who are cited as suspects) cannot be heard under oath, and thus do not risk prosecution for perjury. Such witnesses must be assisted by an attorney, and must be informed of these rights when heard by the judiciary. Suspects brought before a Juge d'instruction must be informed of their right to remain silent, to make statements, or to answer questions. In all cases, an attorney can be designated by the head of the bar if necessary.
According to § 136 Strafprozessordnung [de] (StPO, i.e. Criminal Procedure Code) a suspect, arrested or not, has to be informed before any interrogation about their right to remain silent. Though the police and courts may not draw inference from the complete silence of the accused in any stage of criminal proceedings, inference may be drawn if the accused is selectively silent. Suspects cannot be heard under oath.
Before any interrogation begins a suspect, arrested or not, must be informed:
- Of the crime for which he is charged
- About his right to remain silent
- About his right to consult an attorney before the interview
- About his right to name any evidence in his favour
Foreign suspects have the following additional rights:
A person against which exist plausible causes of suspicion can be interrogated as an ordinary witness in criminal proceedings against another person. However, in this case according to § 55 StPO, the witness can refuse to answer questions which could incriminate themselves (or one of their relatives). The suspicious witness also must be cautioned about the right to remain silent. Suspicious witnesses cannot be heard under oath.
However, the German constitutional court has decided that the much more strict UK laws, in which complete silence of the accused can be used against him depending on additional evidence, are compatible with the German constitution. Thus, Germany may extradite persons to the UK.  It also implies that changing the German laws towards those of the UK would not violate the German constitution.
Hong Kong Edit
The right to silence is protected according to common law.  The "Rules and Directions for the Questioning of Suspects and the Taking of Statements" (Rules and Directions), promulgated by the then Secretary for Security in 1992, stipulate that the caution to be used to remind a suspect of his right to remain silent when he is questioned. The statement can be read in English and Cantonese: 
English:"You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but what you say may be put into writing and given in evidence."
This is similar to the caution given in England and Wales prior to the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. 
According to Jessica Wing-kay Chiu (趙穎琦), then a PhD candidate of the University of Hong Kong, the law does not codify the exact procedure for law enforcement to serve a notice to the right to silence. 
The Constitution of India guarantees every person right against self incrimination under Article 20 (3): "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". It is well established that the Right to Silence has been granted to the accused by virtue of the pronouncement in the case of Nandini Sathpathy vs P.L.Dani, no one can forcibly extract statements from the accused, who has the right to keep silent, but only in the court of law.  It is not clear if the accused can exercise his right to silence during interrogation by public servants. In 2010, the Supreme court found that forced narco-analysis, brain mapping and lie detector tests violate of Article 20(3). 
In Israel, according to Sections 28 (Hearing arguments of the detainee) and Section 31 (Explanation of rights to the detainee) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Authority—Arrests) 1996, an officer interrogating/arresting a suspect must duly warn him first that he does not have to say any thing that may incriminate him, and that any thing he will say may be used against him. According to Israeli law, the exercise of the right to remain silent may be considered as supplemental evidence in most cases, and this fact also needs to be explained to the suspect.  Also the officer needs to inform the suspect that he has the right to notify a family member or acquaintance and a lawyer of his arrest, his right for counsel, and the duration he can be held before he is released or brought before a judge. 
Israeli law has not adopted the "Fruits of the Poisoned Tree" doctrine, and flaws in the process of collecting it affect only the weight of tainted evidence. However, in Criminal Appeal 5121/98, Issaharov v. The Military Prosecutor, a court of nine ruled that the defendant's confession, given without proper warning regarding the right of representation, was not considered as given with consent and free will, and was not accepted by the court.
In Latvia, the Criminal procedure law  (Kriminālprocesa likums) (sections 60.2, 150, 265, and more) sets out a right for anyone against whom criminal proceedings has been initiated or suspicions raised to remain silent. Upon arrest and before first interrogation of a person against whom any (official or unofficial) suspicion has been raised in a criminal case, such person must be warned of his or her right to remain silent, and that everything such person says may be used against that person in a criminal proceedings. Witnesses, victims and persons whose property rights has been affected by criminal proceedings has a right not to incriminate oneself and his or her relatives and not to give any information that is directly or indirectly self-incriminating or may incriminate such persons' relatives. Refusal to testify or answer all or any questions on the basis of right against self-incrimination cannot be used against such person in any way or be used as evidence of guilt. No judge, prosecutor, investigator or any other public body may draw adverse inferences about a person from exercising a right against self-incrimination. Outside criminal proceedings right against self-incrimination is honored as long-standing unwritten general principle of law in all quasi-criminal (such as administrative offense law) and public proceedings, which has been repeatedly upheld by legal precedent and case law.
In the Netherlands, each accused suspect has the right to remain silent to questions of the police and the prosecutor, during interrogation or investigation at the hearing. According to Dutch law, only the police officer will read the rights of the suspect in the police station. Security guards have the right to put somebody under arrest, but they have to hand over the suspect immediately to the police officer who will read the rights of the suspect later in the station. The rights are: to remain silent, the right to have an attorney, the right to have access to some files coming from the criminal dossier, and the right to make contact to an attorney.
There is an exception: The accused must co-operate when there is "een aan de wil van de verdachte onafhankelijk goed" (material which has an existence independent of the will of a suspect) and a legal obligation for the suspect to hand over such material exists. For example, a suspect has to co-operate with giving a blood sample (with a suspicion of alcohol in traffic). Or the defendant must co-operate in handing over mucus, dandruff or hair for a DNA test. Such a DNA test can only be done at the request of the Prosecutor and ordered by the judge. There also have to be serious objections against the accused. And temporary detention has to be applicable.
New Zealand Edit
In New Zealand, the right of persons arrested to refrain from making a statement and to be informed of that right is contained in the Bill of Rights Act 1990, as further reflected in a practice note on police questioning issued in 2006, by then Chief Justice Sian Elias.. The Evidence Act 2006 explicitly prohibits the inference of guilt in a criminal proceeding from a defendant exercising their right to silence.  At common law the leading case is Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board where Justice Cooke held, "The starting point . [is], unless an Act of Parliament imposes or authorises the imposition of a duty to the contrary, every citizen has in general a right to refuse to answer questions from anyone, including an official." 
The obligation to caution arises when:
- a suspect is in custody
- when police have enough evidence to believe the person has committed an offence
- when detained, such as for the execution of a statutory or common law power of search or in the execution of drink driving investigations
- other situations as dictated by statute or case law.
The caution to be given to adults (17 and over) is: 
I am speaking to you about/You have been detained for/You have been arrested for [offence]. You have the right to remain silent. You do not have to make any statement. Anything you say will be recorded and may be given in evidence in court. You have the right to speak with a lawyer without delay and in private before deciding to answer any questions. Police have a list of lawyers you may speak to for free.
The caution to be given to children and young persons under 17 is:
I am speaking to you about/You have been detained for/You have been arrested for [offence]. You have the right to remain silent. You do not have to make any statement or answer any questions. If you agree to make a statement and/or answer any questions you can change your mind and stop at any time. Anything you say will be recorded and may be given in evidence in court – this means if you are taken to court for [offence] what you say to me may be retold to the judge or jury. You have the right to speak with a lawyer and/or any person nominated by you without delay and in private before deciding whether to make any statement or answer any questions. You have the right to have your lawyer and/or nominated person with you while you make any statement or answer any questions. Police have a list of lawyers you may speak to for free.
According to Straffeprosessloven (Criminal Procedures Code), a defendant cannot be obliged to testify(§90). Further no promises, inaccurate information, threats or coercion can be used. The same applies to any means which reduces the defendants consciousness or his ability to self-determination. Any interrogation must not have as a goal to wear out the defendant(§92). However, if the defendant decides not to testify, the judge may advise him that it may in certain circumstances be held against him(§93).
In general, anyone is required to appear before the courts and give testimony, except dictated otherwise by the law(§108)
There are some notable exceptions:
§119: The court may not hear evidence from a priest in the Norwegian Church, or indeed any priest or similar in any registered faith, lawyers, defence attorneys, arbitrators in marriage affairs, medical doctors, psychologists, nurses, midwives or apothecaries, except with the explicit permission of the person entitled to silence, concerning anything they have learnt during the performance of their function. The above does not apply if testimony is required to prevent someone from being wrongfully convicted(§119). Catholic priests have refused to testify about information obtained in confession even in these cases, and the Supreme Court has not sanctioned this.
§121: Even if the relationship is not regulated by §119, the courts may relieve a witness of the duty to testify concerning information obtained in counseling, social work, medical care, judicial assistance "or similar".
§122: A defendants spouse, relatives in directly ascending or descending order, siblings and their spouses are not required to give testimony. The same applies to separated or divorced spouses, or people living in a "marriage like" relationship, e.g. common-law marriages. The court may extend this right to fiancees, foster-parents/children/siblings.
§123: A witness may refuse to answer questions leading to self-incrimination either for the witness itself, or for anyone related to the witness as described by §122.
§124: A witness may refuse to answer questions relating to business secrets. The court may oblige the witness to testify after consideration.
§125: The editor of a printed magazine/newspaper may refuse to divulge the writer of any articles in his journal, or sources for its content.
Article 13 of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan protects a person, when accused of an offence, from self-incrimination. 
Article 3, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution states that "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." 
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, in section 12(1) of Article 3 (Bill of Rights), states: 
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
This was expanded into a caution during arrest under Republic Act 7438.  Previously, informing arrested persons of their rights occurred long after arrest, if it ever occurred at all.
Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.
Punishments for law enforcement officers who fail to read suspects their rights, under RA7438, are severe: besides a fine of 6,000 Philippine pesos, officials may be jailed for between eight and ten years.
In the 1999 case People vs Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485,  the Supreme Court of the Philippines was asked to consider the case of Larry Mahinay y Amparado, a man convicted of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, the neighbor of his employer. Mahinay confessed but later retracted his confession, claiming that he made it due to fear surrounding his imprisonment and not actual guilt. Mahinay claimed that the police officers attacked him and threatened to kill him if he would not confess, and they did not inform him of his right to remain silent until after he had already confessed and all that remained was to sign the confession.
There was no physical evidence to back up Mahinay's claims, and his attorney claimed that Mahinay was read his rights before he confessed. In its decision to affirm Mahinay's conviction, the court declared:
There being no evidence presented to show that said confession were obtained as a result of violence, torture, maltreatment, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been motivated to concoct the facts narrated in said affidavit the confession of the accused is held to be true, correct and freely or voluntarily given.
But the court also declared the following, which has since become a landmark decision in the rights of the accused in the Philippines, and is sometimes referred to as the Mahinay doctrine:
- The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person
- He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him
- He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice
- He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf
No court or legislature has as yet determined the exact wording of the caution to be presented to arrested persons. As such, the Philippine National Police has created their own version. According to the 2010 edition of the official PNP manual, "every police officer, either on board a mobile car, motorcycle or on foot patrol must always carry with him a police notebook, a pen and the Miranda Warning card. The notebook, which is approximately pocket-sized, will be used to inscribe important events that transpire during his tour of duty." 
The version in use by the PNP reads:  
English Filipino Miranda warning You are arrested for the crime of _________ (or by virtue of Warrant of Arrest, showing him the warrant as it is practicable) You have the right to remain silent. Any statement you make may be used for or against you in a court of law . You have the right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of your own choice, and if you cannot afford the services of a counsel, the government will provide you one. Do you understand these rights? Ikaw ay inaaresto sa salang _________ (o sa pamamagitan ng kautusan ng pag-aresto, ipakita ito kung nararapat). Ikaw ay may karapatang manahimik o magsawalang kibo. Anuman ang iyong sabihin ay maaring gamitin pabor o laban sa iyo sa anumang hukuman. Ikaw ay mayroon ding karapatang kumuha ng tagapagtanggol na iyong pinili at kung wala kang kakayahan, ito ay ipagkakaloob sa iyo ng pamahalaan. Nauunawaan mo ba ito? Anti-torture warning   You have the right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of your choice. If you cannot afford the services of a doctor, the state shall provide one for you. Ikaw ay may karapatang magpatingin sa isang mapagkakatiwalaang doktor na sarili mong pinili. Kung wala kang kakayahang kumuha ng iyong doktor, ikaw ay pagkakalooban ng libre ng estado o pamahalaan.
Various regional offices of the PNP use translations in other languages spoken in the Philippines depending on the jurisdiction of the office. In 2012, the International Committee of the Red Cross donated 15,000 cards to the PNP, and commissioned the translation of the warning into two more languages, Visaya and Cebuano, shown on the front of the card along with the Filipino version above. 
Due to the increasing numbers of arrests of foreign nationals during President Rodrigo Duterte's Oplan Double Barrel, the Human Rights Affairs Office (PNP-HRAO) of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame, Quezon City has further translated the Miranda warning into four foreign languages: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese.  Distribution of the translated warnings to law enforcement officers will occur via a publicly available mobile app, according to the officer-in-charge of PNP-HRAO, Sr. Supt. Dennis Siervo. 
According to the website of the Philippine National Police Regional Office 13, at Camp Rafael C Rodriguez in Butuan City, failure to recite either the Miranda or anti-torture warnings above can result in "dismissal of the case against the suspect and filing of administrative case for the arresting police [officer]." 
Republic of Ireland Edit
In the Republic of Ireland, the Supreme Court held that the right was not only a common law right but also a constitutional right which might however be validly limited by legislation (O'Leary v AG  1 IR 254).
In this jurisdiction, a number of statutory measures have re-interpreted the right to silence, such as the Criminal Justice Act 1984, the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1998 and the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998. The general effect of some of these measures is to provide for adverse inferences to be drawn against a suspect who declines to answer questions while being questioned in Garda custody. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 also affects the right to silence, in that it permits inferences to be drawn from silence where no solicitor is present.
Russian Federation Edit
Clause 1 of the article 51  of the Russian Constitution grants everyone the right to not witness against either themselves or against their spouses and close relatives. As the decision whether or not an answer to a particular question would lead to (self)incrimination is left to the discretion of the person being questioned, this clause allows to remain silent at any time.
South Africa Edit
The Constitution of South Africa requires that any arrested person be informed of their right to remain silent and the consequences of not remaining silent, their right to choose and consult with a legal practitioner, and their right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense if substantial injustice would otherwise result.  The South African Police Service rules prescribe that arrested people be given a Form 14A "Notice of Rights in Terms of the Constitution" which describes these and other rights of arrested people. 
According to Section 35 of the Constitution of 1996  ("Arrested, detained and accused persons") states:
- Everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right
- to remain silent
- to be informed promptly
- of the right to remain silent and
- of the consequences of not remaining silent
- not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person
- Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right
- . .
- not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence
In Spain, according to the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (Penal procedure code) article 520.2, the suspect must be informed of the charges leading to his/her detention, as well as the reasons for being deprived of his/her freedom. Additionally, the individual must be advised of the following rights:
- Right to remain silent, to answer only questions of his/her choosing, or to express their desire to make a statement only in front of a judge.
- Right not to give evidence against him/herself, as well as not to confess his/her guilt.
- Right to legal representation by a private or state-funded attorney, which will assist him during hearings and procedures.
- Right to inform a member of his/her family or a person of his/her choosing regarding the detention as well as their location, at any moment of the proceedings. Foreigners have the right to contact their consulate in Spain.
- Right to request the services of an interpreter, at no cost, when the foreign national does not speak Spanish.
- Right to undergo a medical examination by the forensic doctor.
Article 158 of the unified Swiss code of criminal procedure, which entered into force in 2011,  establishes that the results of an interrogation may not be used unless the accused has been informed that:
- he/she is the subject of a criminal investigation for some specific infractions,
- he/she has the right to remain silent and not to cooperate with police,
- he/she has the right to legal representation by a private or state-funded attorney, and
- he/she has the right to request the services of an interpreter.
The cantonal codes of procedure, which remain in force until 2011, generally contain similar provisions.
Sections 83 and 84 of the Thai Code of Criminal Procedure, which have been amended by the Act Amending the Criminal Procedure Code (No. 22), BE 2547 (2004), require the police officers who conduct the arrests to inform the arrestees of the Miranda rights.
Paragraph two of section 83 reads: 
In cases an arrest is conducted by an officer, the officer must inform the arrestee of the charge, produce to him a warrant of arrest, if any, and enlighten him that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can and will be used as evidence in a trial, and that he also has the right to meet and confer with a counsel or person to become his counsel. If the arrestee wishes to inform his relative or intimate of his arrest and the fulfillment of his wish would not be difficult and not be disruptive to his arrest or restraint or detrimental to any person, the officer shall allow the arrestee to so fulfill to the extent reasonable according to the circumstances. In this respect, the arresting officer shall also draw up a record of arrest.
While paragraph one of section 84 prescribes: 
An officer or private citizen conducting an arrest must without delay bring the arrestee to the judicial police office under section 83. Upon arriving there, the arrestee must be delivered to an administrative or police officer thereof to further be dealt with as follows: (2) In cases the arrest is conducted by a private citizen, the administrative or police officer receiving the arrestee shall draw up a record of the name, occupation and address of the citizen, including the information and circumstances as to the arrest as well, and require the citizen to sign such record. The officer shall then inform the male arrestee of the charge and detailed grounds for his arrest, and enlighten him that he has the right to remain silent and anything he says can and will be used as evidence in a trial.
Section 4 of Article 29 of Constitution of Ukraine  reads:
Everyone arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention, apprised of his or her rights, and from the moment of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself, or to have the legal assistance of a defender.
Article 63 of Constitution of Ukraine reads:
A person shall not bear responsibility for refusing to testify or to explain anything about himself or herself, members of his or her family or close relatives in the degree determined by law.
A suspect, an accused, or a defendant has the right to a defense.
A convicted person enjoys all human and citizens' rights, with the exception of restrictions determined by law and established by a court verdict.
The Criminal Process Code of Ukraine has some regulations on how the rights of suspects and accused. Section 2 of Article 21  reads:
Inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, judge, and court, before the first examination of the suspect, accused, and defendant, are required to advise them of the right to have a defense counsel and draw up an appropriate record thereon, as well as provide the suspect, accused, and defendant the possibility to defend themselves with legal remedies from the charge brought and ensure protection of their personal and property rights.
Article 43–1, Section 1 gives the following definition of "suspect": 
The following person is considered to be a suspect:
1) a person apprehended on the suspicion of having committed a crime
2) a person in whose respect a measure of restraint has been imposed before the decision to prosecute him/her has been made.
Consequently, the list of suspect's rights follows: 
The suspect has the right to: know what he/she is suspected of give testimonies or refuse testifying and answering questions have a defense counsel and meet him/her before the first examination produce evidence submit motions and propose disqualifications request that the court or prosecutor verify legality of the apprehension submit complaints against actions and decisions of the officer who conducts operational-detective activities, inquirer, investigator, and prosecutor, and, with appropriate grounds present, have his/her security ensured. The fact that the suspect was advised of his/her rights is entered into the record of apprehension or decision to impose a measure of restraint.
Article 53 contains the following regulation: 
Court, prosecutor, investigator and the inquirer are required to advise participants to the case of their rights and to ensure the possibility to enjoy such rights.
However, there are no clear regulations on how the rights should be announced. This is commonly made by reading them out when announcing the decision on instituting criminal proceedings or arrest and then requiring a suspect or arrestee to sign the list of these rights.
United Kingdom Edit
The right to silence is different depending on which UK jurisdiction the suspect is questioned. In England and Wales it is possible for an adverse inference to be drawn from an accused person's silence during questioning.   The same is true for Northern Ireland under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988,  but no adverse inference may be drawn in Scotland under Scots law. 
England and Wales Edit
The right to silence has a long history in England and Wales, first having been codified in the Judges' Rules in 1912. A defendant in a criminal trial has a choice whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Further, there is no general duty to assist the police with their inquiries.
At common law, and particularly following the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,  adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused:
- fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention
- fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question
- fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested or
- fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.   Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. 
In respect of those questioned by the Serious Fraud Office, the right to silence has been reduced by virtue of Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.  The right has also been reduced for those accused of terrorist offences.
The UK has some of the strictest key disclosure laws of the western world. Under Section 49  and Section 53  of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), it is an offence to fail to disclose when requested the key to encrypted data (with a penalty of two years in prison, or five years with regards to child sex abuse cases). Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to convict people who have refused to disclose their password to customs.
Warnings regarding the right against self-incrimination may have originated in England and Wales. In 1912, the judges of the King's Bench issued the Judges' Rules. These provided that, when a police member had admissible evidence to suspect a person of an offence and wished to question that suspect about an offence, the officer should first caution the person that he was entitled to remain silent. However, the warning about the possibility of anything the male suspect said being potentially used against him predates even that: it appears for example in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel A Study in Scarlet, published in 1887:
The official was a white-faced unemotional man, who went through his duties in a dull mechanical way. "The prisoner will be put before the magistrates in the course of the week," he said "in the mean time, Mr. Jefferson Hope, have you anything that you wish to say? I must warn you that your words will be taken down, and may be used against you."
"I've got a good deal to say," our prisoner said slowly. "I want to tell you gentlemen all about it."
"Hadn't you better reserve that for your trial?" asked the Inspector.
In G. K. Chesterton's novel The Ball and the Cross, published in 1909 (Chapter X: "The Swords Rejoined"):
"No, sir," said the sergeant "though most of the people talk French. This is the island called St. Loup, sir, an island in the Channel. We've been sent down specially from London, as you were such specially distinguished criminals, if you'll allow me to say so. Which reminds me to warn you that anything you say may be used against you at your trial."
The pre-trial operation of the privilege against self-incrimination was further buttressed by the decision in Ibrahim v R  AC 599 that an admission or confession made by the accused to the police would only be admissible in evidence if the prosecution could establish that it had been voluntary. An admission or confession is only voluntary if made in the exercise of a free choice about whether to speak or remain silent:
In R v Leckey (1943) CAR 128 the Court of Criminal Appeal said:
. an innocent person might well, either from excessive caution or for some other reason, decline to say anything when charged and cautioned, and if it were possible to hold that out to a jury as a ground on which they might find a man guilty, it is obvious that innocent persons might be in great peril.
Therefore, a caution of the form of:
You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence.
was used. Major reform to the questioning and treatment of suspected offenders occurred in 1984 when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force. Under Code C the right to silence was amended by allowing adverse inferences to be drawn at a court hearing in cases where a suspect refuses to explain something, and then later produces an explanation (see right to silence in England and Wales).  In other words, the jury is entitled to infer that the accused fabricated the explanation at a later date, as he refused to provide the explanation during police questioning. The jury is also free to make no such inference. The new caution is:
You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
If questioning is forthcoming, "when questioned" may be replaced with "now". In cases in which the suspect has clearly nothing to gain by failing to remain silent:
Anything you do say may, and will, be given in evidence.
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you. If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence.  [ citation needed ]
or even (in circumstances where no adverse inference can be drawn from silence):
You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence.
Northern Ireland Edit
The Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988  provided for adverse inferences being drawn for failure to mention something prior to being charged to an offence. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2009/2087 which came into effect on 5 October 2009, and replaced the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 24 provides for post-charge questioning. This can be applied for failure to mention facts after a suspect has been charged with an offence.
The scope of emergency legislation in Northern Ireland includes limitations on the right to silence, extended police detention powers and limitations on a suspect's right to legal counsel at time of arrest which can all impact upon a suspects right to a fair trial. In John Murray v United Kingdom, the ECHR declared that the fair trial guarantee encompassed the entire legal process from the moment of arrest through to conviction. The ECHR addressed this issue in a limited context in Murray v UK (1996) "To deny access to a lawyer for the first 48 hours of police questioning, in a situation where the rights of the defense may well be irretrievably prejudiced, is – whatever the justification for such denial – incompatible with the rights of the accused under Article 6."
The right to silence in Scots law has been enshrined in statute by section 34 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. Previously, the right to silence, as with much of Scots criminal law, was held under common law.
The common law caution given by police to inform a person of their right to silence in Scotland is:
"You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"
The only exception to this rule is that a person must state, upon being required to do so, their name, address, date of birth, place of birth (in such detail as a constable considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of establishing the person's identity), and nationality. The requirement to give personal details also exists in Scots law under section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which provides that a person suspected to have committed, or suspected of having been witness to, an offence must provide the aforementioned details to a constable upon being required to do so. Failure to provide said details under section 13 is a criminal offence.
No adverse inference can be drawn by an accused person's silence when they are interviewed under caution. 
United States Edit
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself.   At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify.  Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant,   although defendants were originally not allowed to testify on their own behalf at all.  An 1864 appropriations act allowed defendants to do so while removing race restrictions,  and the 1987 Supreme Court case Rock v. Arkansas established a constitutional "right to take the witness stand." 
Outside the context of lawful detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of the police.  If judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person can still invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to testify if answers to questions posed are potentially self-incriminating.  Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him or her, can a person be compelled to answer over an assertion of this right.   If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him or her that he or she has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. (This is known as the Miranda warning.)  If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and ordinarily nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule may be admitted against him or her at trial.  
On 17 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas that, prior to being arrested, an individual must specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment right to "remain silent", otherwise selective silence can be used against him or her in court. 
Uniform Code of Military Justice Edit
Members of the United States Armed Forces are covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under the UCMJ, sworn military personnel, whether of enlisted, warrant or commissioned rank, have a right to remain silent that was established 16 years before the Miranda v. Arizona ruling.  There are significant protections against coercive self incrimination in Article 31, UCMJ,  but it does differ somewhat from the Miranda warning, and in essence provides greater protections.  This is one difference between civilian and military justice in the United States, and many other nations have similar corollary rules regarding military justice vs. civilian justice. 
Why Have Miranda Rights Failed?
Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda rights have failed to protect against police coercion. What can we now do to change this?
Tagged Civil RightsConstitutionlawpoliceSupreme Court
The 50 th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona—it was decided this month in 1966—should be the occasion for realizing that the Court’s approach to ending police coercion in interrogations failed and that new steps are essential. At the time Miranda was decided, conservatives and law enforcement officials vehemently attacked the requirement that police had to warn suspects of their right to remain silent and of their right to counsel. They saw it as making it harder for police to solve crimes and for prosecutors to gain convictions. But study after study has shown that it did not turn out that way and that Miranda has had little real effect. This raises the questions: Why and what should be done about this?
The privilege against self-incrimination was initially developed in English law, and was well established by the end of the seventeenth century. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment provides this protection and declares: “No person shall be . . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” But for the first century and a half of American history, few Supreme Court cases addressed or enforced this. The Bill of Rights, including the Fifth Amendment, was held to apply only to the federal government, and law enforcement was done almost entirely at the state and local level.
In Brown v. Mississippi, in 1936, the Supreme Court held that involuntary confessions violate due process. The case involved three African American tenant farmers who were forced to confess to the murder of a white farmer. The suspects confessed after they were whipped by the police and one was hung from a tree. Between 1936 and 1964, there were 34 Supreme Court cases that applied the “voluntariness standard,” under which a statement must be voluntary to be admissible, and the overwhelming majority of these were death penalty cases.
Miranda v. Arizona was a result of the Court’s perception that the voluntariness standard was inadequate to protect the privilege against self-incrimination. Voluntariness was determined from the “totality of the circumstances” and was therefore unpredictable. In assessing voluntariness, courts looked at numerous factors, including the suspect’s intelligence, education, physical health, emotional age, and past criminal record, as well as whether the suspect had been fed and allowed to sleep, the length of questioning, and whether a request to see an attorney had been denied. Courts could use these factors to justify any conclusion. Also, the test did not give police clear guidance as to what they could and could not do.
Police interrogations occurred in secret. Usually it was the word of the officers against the word of the suspect as to what took place. Additionally, the voluntariness test did nothing to address the coercion inherent when a person in custody is questioned by the police. In Miranda, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion for the majority detailed the types of practices police use to gain confessions and spoke of the need to lessen the coercion inherent to custodial interrogation. The requirement that police provide warnings before questioning a person in custody was thought to be the solution for lessening coercion during police interrogations.
The overwhelming consensus of countless studies is that Miranda has had no effect on the ability of police to gain confessions and of prosecutors to gain convictions. In the years after Miranda was decided, studies were done in places like New Haven, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. Each found that Miranda had no discernable effects. Professor Stephen Schulhofer found an initial small effect of Miranda, but said that after the first few years its effect has been “essentially nil.” Professor Richard Leo, in a more recent study, came to the same conclusion: that Miranda has had no impact on either confessions or convictions.
In fact, law enforcement, which initially vehemently attacked the decision, came to embrace it. For example, in 1968, Congress passed a provision through the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to overturn Miranda. Section 3501 states that confessions are admissible in federal court so long as they are voluntary, even if Miranda warnings are not properly given. This passed the Senate 72-4 and the House 369-17.
But when the constitutionality of this provision finally came before the Supreme Court in United States v. Dickerson in 2000, many law enforcement groups wrote briefs supporting Miranda. It is easy to see why. As Justice David Souter expressed: “Giving the warnings and getting a waiver has generally been a ticket of admissibility.” So long as the police properly administer the warnings, there is a strong presumption of voluntariness and admissibility of any confession. The Court in Dickerson, by a 7-2 margin, reaffirmed Miranda and declared the federal law overruling it to be unconstitutional.
So why has Miranda failed? In part, it is because the decision rested on the false premises that suspects would understand their Miranda warnings and that providing them would have an effect in decreasing the coercion inherent to custodial interrogation. But it is also because law enforcement developed countless ways of circumventing the warnings, such as by questioning suspects before they are taken into custody, or by having officers present the warnings in a way that inherently undermines them. Professor Charles Weisselberg reviewed police training videos and manuals and found that officers are routinely instructed on how to question outside Miranda and circumvent its requirements.
Also, the Supreme Court repeatedly has undermined Miranda in many decisions over the last half century. For example, in Harris v. New York, in 1971, the Court held that statements gained without proper administration of Miranda warnings still could be used to impeach suspects, providing an incentive for police to ignore Miranda, as they knew that they still could benefit from illegally obtained confessions. In Quarles v. New York, in 1984, the Court said that warnings do not have to be given where there is a concern for “public safety.” In cases like United States v. Patane (2004), the Court held that police could use the tangible evidence they gained as a result of what they learned from improperly obtained statements. Finally, in Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Court ruled that a suspect must explicitly invoke his or her right to remain silent confessing, even after a prolonged silence, was deemed a waiver of the right to remain silent.
The serious problem that motivated the Court’s decision in Miranda persists: police interrogation is inherently coercive. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination remains inadequately protected. Moreover, as a result of the work of the Innocence Project and its network of affiliates, we have learned of many individuals who were wrongly convicted, some of whom gave false confessions.
One important step would be to require that all police questioning—whether in the field or the station house—be videotaped. Some states long have required videotaping of police interrogation. Alaska began this in 1985 and Missouri in 1994. There is a trend toward requiring squad cars to have “dash cams” and officers to wear “body cams” so that all interactions are recorded. Video technology is now inexpensive and unobtrusive. There is no reason not to have every interrogation room equipped with a video camera that runs at all times when there is questioning. At the very least, this will provide a record of what occurred.
Another step would be to require that counsel be present at all interrogations. This actually was urged to the Court in Miranda, though the decision did not go that far. This would be a crucial step in ensuring that suspects understand their rights and in lessening the coercive nature of police interrogations. At the very least, this should be required when minors are questioned by the police. There is a bill pending right now in the California legislature that would mandate this.
Few Supreme Court cases have entered popular culture in the way of Miranda v. Arizona. Few were as controversial when decided. And few have so failed to live up to their promise. At a time of increasing focus on police behavior, the 50th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona should be the occasion for taking the necessary steps to finally make its promise a reality.
The History of Miranda Rights
The History of Miranda Rights Miranda Rights is a ruling, based upon a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a 1966 case, that law-enforcement officers must warn a person taken into custody that he or she has the right to remain silent and is entitled to legal counsel. (legal-dictionary.com) Miranda rules prevent a person from self-incrimination. The fifth- amendment is an amendment to the US Constitution states that no person may be compelled to testify against himself and a person can refuse to answer a question on the grounds that it might incriminate oneself. Miranda prevents criminal investigators form violating a suspect fifth-amendment rights. A series of unfortunate events led up to the Miranda Rights being implemented into the criminal justice system. On March 2nd, 1963 a young woman reported her tape to the Phoenix, Arizona police department. She told the police that she had been driven to the desert and raped by a male unfamiliar to her. Although her polygraph test was inconclusive they arrested Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto Miranda had a prior history as a peeping tom and his car fit the description provided by the victim. Another flaw from the beginning was the victim did not identify Miranda in a line-up before he was brought into police custody and interrogated. After being interrogated for hours the police received a full confession from Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto Miranda later recanted his statement that was given to the police stating that he was unaware that he didn't have to say anything at all. (mirandawarning.org) As if the investigation wasn’t flawed enough the case was a nightmare as well. The confession that was given by Miranda was different from the victim's account of the kidnapping and rape. One would wonder how the prosecutor received a prosecution.
Miranda V Arizona
. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery (Landmark Cases). After being arrested, Miranda was interrogated for hours where Miranda allegedly confessed to the crimes. He then stood trial were this confession being the only evidence from the prosecution and he was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Ernesto Miranda never finished the ninth grade, had a history of mental problems and received no counsel during the interrogation or trial. Following his conviction, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court “claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” (Landmark Cases). The court upheld the conviction. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally looked at the case in 1966. Upon evaluation of the case the court found many flaws in the arrest of Ernesto Miranda. Under the Fifth Amendment the suspect has right to refuse to be a witness against himself and the Six Amendment, which gives a guarantee to a criminal defendants the right to an attorney (Landmark Cases). This is the police’s duty to inform all suspects of these rights, something that was not given prior to the two-hour interrogation. Chief Justice Earl Warren made this all part of the written decision in a 5-4 ruling by The Supreme Court that overturned the conviction of Ernesto Miranda (Landmark Cases). Ernesto Miranda would later be retried and convicted of the same crimes without.
Miranda V Arizona
. Miranda v. Arizona: Half a Century Later by: September 2nd, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION A. Executive Summary – In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated the case Miranda v. Arizona the most important aspect of due process and criminal procedure ever affecting law enforcement and prosecutorial conduct of an investigation. The main issues in this case were: * The admissibility of a defendant’s statements if such statements were made while the defendant was held in police custody or deprived of freedom of movement in a significant way * What procedures were required to guarantee the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination according to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? This case is considered the summit of the criminal procedure evolution establishing specific procedures to safeguard the rights of defendants beyond the courtroom and onto the police station. The procedural details and the breadth of civil rights tangled in these four cases, made this decision the pinnacle case in the area of criminal procedure. Nowadays, this decision gave the name to what is widely known as the “Miranda Warnings” which include: 1. The suspect has the right to remain silent, 2. Anything he/she says may be used as evidence against him, 3. He/she has a right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and 4. If indigent, he/she has a right to a lawyer selected for him without charge. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE.
Criminal Justice Ethics and Cultralperspectives
. DEVELOPMENT AND SCOPE OF THE MIRANDA WARNINGS Miranda v. Arizona - 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963. Upon his apprehension, Mr. Miranda was presented with a confession requiring his signature Mr. Miranda underwent a police interrogation that was reported as spanning upwards of 2 hours – within his interrogation, he made a full confession, agreeing that he did so without duress, force, or threat. However, at no time was Mr. Miranda ever told about this right to council or his right to remain silent. Prior Proceedings: Mr. Miranda was charged with kidnapping Count I and Rape, Count II and pronounced guilty by the Superior Court, Maricopa County, Yale McFate, J., entered a judgment of guilty sentenced to serve from twenty to thirty years on each count, to run concurrently. (Arizona, 1965) Vignera v. New York, the defendant made oral admissions to the police after interrogation in the afternoon, and then signed an exculpatory statement upon being questioned by an assistant district attorney later the same evening. Westover v. United States, the defendant was handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by local authorities after they had detained and interrogated him for a lengthy period, both at night and the following morning. After some two hours of questioning, the federal officers had obtained signed statements from the defendant California v. Stewart, the local police held the.
. stage. Investigating all of the suspects believed to be involved. This includes gathering evidence at the scene of the crime. If this is a case of probable cause this means gathering any witnesses with reliable information and writing a search warrant request so that you may fully investigate the matter. I believe that the investigation is the most important element. Without that stage there is no way of being able to prove one way or the other what happened or occurred. If necessary you can also request a search warrant for the suspect’s property. Keep in mind that we have to secure the warrants in order for the evidence found in the process of a search to be admissible in court. This is also a way of protecting the suspect’s 4th Amendment rights. In order to invade one’s privacy there has to be probable cause. A search warrant is only issued by a magistrate, if that burden has been met. The investigation process can also save the system a lot of money. I say this because you don’t have to waste valuable time and resources chasing an indictment when you see that either no crime has been committed or that your initial suspect was literally unable to commit the crime. Our next step once we have gathered all of the information and evidence we can legally obtain.
Case Law on Miranda Rights
. On March 13, 1963 a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department in his own home on circumstantial evidence that he kidnapped and raped a seventeen year old girl ten days earlier. The woman who reported the rape worked at a movie theater in downtown Phoenix and got off of work shortly after 11pm on March 2, 1963. The woman and one of her male coworkers took the bus home but before the woman reached her destination her coworker got off at one of the bus stops. Once she got off at her stop and started walking toward home she said a car pulled out of a driveway and almost hit her. The car started following her in the same direction she was going in and before she knew it someone was reaching out of the car grabbing her and telling her to be quiet and he wouldn’t hurt her. She said she begged the man to let her go but against her wishes he tied her hands together and pushed her into the back seat. Once in the back seat she was then pushed into the floor of the car and her ankles were tied together. She said the man then drove the car out into the Phoenix desert where he raped her. After it was over the man demanded her to give him any money she had which she did. He then drove her back to where he picked her up and let her go. The woman’s terrified family brought her to the hospital to be checked out and shortly after the police took her statement. The police said that based on her statement they were looking for a Mexican man with a.
. intentions were, and we will also look into the intentions of the right to privacy and criminal rights. Within the first amendment, the most known and widely used right is stated, the freedom of speech. While under common law, people would have to be careful of what they say or write about the government or political parties, as they would be charged with a seditious crime regardless of its truth or relevance. Freedom of speech and of the press was created to allow individuals to speak freely or publish without license their grievances against the conduct of public officials or policies thereof. Although the roots remain the same, the modern day understanding has come with some confusion. In the current times, many still believe in the right to free speech, however continue to debate what should be covered. Many believe that the burning of the flag or the advertisement of pornography or nude dancing should not be allowed and should be punishable. With time on its side, the first amendment has been scrutinized severely. Thus creating something that is even more confusing than before. With cases like Burstyn v. Wilson in 1952 and the case of the United States v. O’Brien in 1968, the understanding has become clearer on what is accepted and what is not. Even though this is so, in the modern day, it is more about how it is perceived according to today’s standards. The freedom of religion is another major right.
. process can be traced back to 1868 thanks to the fourteenth amendment being ratified that year. What is vital to know about the fourth teen amendment is this "No state shall deprive any person life of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (Wilson, 2009, p. 33). When I think of due process the first think that comes to my mind is being arrested. During my research on the topic I found some very interesting information in regards to the due process. I found information that states the term due process is much older than 1868. According to Barnabas D. Johnson "The phrase "due process of law" originated in a 1355 restatement of the 1215 Magna Carta, by which for the first time in history (at least in relation to the rights of ordinary people) "the government" — in this case, King John of England — was brought "under the law" . that is, became subject to something called "the law of the land" which he was not empowered to alter in its fundamental character. This is the origin of the concept of "government under law" as distinct from merely "government by laws"" (Johnson, 2005) I found that information to be unique because more people like myself think of that term coming from the 1868, in fact that term is much older than. Explain how due process protects the accused against abuses by the federal government. The due process protects us in several ways against abuse by the.
Wedding Power Film Analysis
. As the theorist Michel Foucault examines history to explore the layers of structure of power, I find the history of wedding tradition to be fascinating. “He uses history to dispel the sort of routine, instituted self-assurance people have about reality of such entities as the mental disorders they fear they may be suffering from, or the inner sexual needs they believe they have to release. Foucault has examined various kinds of systems of thought through which people have come to identify themselves as subjects.”(Rajchman) And then another good quote about Michel Foucault is “For more than a decade, his elegant shaved skull had been an emblem of political courage-a cynosure of resistance to institutions that would smother the free spirit and stifle the right to be different.” (Miller 13) I will be exploring how the present days views are reinforced the dominant message of how a wedding should be and then how in some movies, the post-feminism is displayed which slightly alters this dominant image. I will be also exploring the mix of cultural traditions within the wedding to see how the structure is similar or drastically different. I will discuss Marx’s Materialism ideology aspect of the domination of the ruling class and explore the aspect of the base and superstructure with the mode of production/the system of economic relations within the institutions surrounding wedding ideology. Through close textual analysis, I will show the dominant ideology of the wedding.
Ch 6 Summary
. ch y Psychology can assist law enforcement by profiling criminal suspects assessing in truthfulness of suspects and evaluating the validity of their confessions. Psychological theory and techniques can be used to improve police officers evaluations of criminal suspects. * Profiling is usually performed at the beginning of criminal investigation when the police need help focusing on certain types of people who might be the suspect * Once a suspect has been identified law enforcement officials use other procedures to determine whether any of them should be charged. * Police look for visual and verbal cues to determine whether they are giving truthful responses Suspects are sometimes given a lie detector test to encourage them to confess. * The tests provide more information about their guilt or innocence. * They conflict with some psychological findings about their accuracy. * Sometimes they are submitted into evidence. * Many psychologists question the validity of the test. The police interrogate suspects and encourage them to confess because the confessions make it more likely that suspects will successfully prosecute and eventually convicted the suspects. Psychological finding often conflict with the courts evaluations of a voluntary confession. There is some evidence psychological characteristics are linked to behavioral patterns and they can be detected by a psychological analysis of crime scenes. * Criminal profiling is used to.
. System Juvenile justice is the section of law that applies to persons under the age of 18 not capable of receiving sentencing in the adult court system or old enough to be responsible for criminal acts committed in society. In most states the age of criminal culpability is 18 however, the age requirement can be set lower in accordance to certain crimes and statutes set by the state the juvenile lives in. Juvenile law is primarily run by state law and most states enforce a specific juvenile code the system follows. The juvenile justice system primarily focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment for youthful offenders. Society appears to concentrate that children are more capable of change than adult offenders more capable of knowing right from wrong ("Cornell University Law School," nod.). The statutes creating the juvenile court systems and methods of allocating with juvenile delinquency are run by courts as a suitable extension of state police power to warrant the safety and welfare of children in the system. The doctrine of parent’s patria allows the state to promulgate for the safeguard, care, custody, and upkeep of children within its jurisdiction. In 1968 the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act was put into effect, and in 1972 it was put into revision as the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act. This act set forth to assist states in dealing with juvenile delinquent acts and assist communities to prevent delinquency by providing services to the.
. a murder suspect, waived his Miranda rights and was interrogated at a sheriff’s office. He was brought before a judge for a hearing where he was appointed legal representation. Later that day, two officers visited him at the prison and asked Montejo to accompany them to locate the murder weapon, which he claimed he had thrown into a lake. He was read his Miranda rights again and agreed to go with the officers to search for the murder weapon. Montejo wrote a letter of apology to the victim’s spouse during this time, but he did not see his attorney until he had returned to the prison. III. Case History At his trial, the letter of apology Montejo wrote to the victim’s widow was used as evidence to convict him of first-degree murder and to sentence him to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Montejo’s arguments based on Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986) and upheld the conviction, stating that Montejo did not make any sort of request that counsel be appointed to him because he stood mute at his preliminary hearing. IV. Legal Issues Did Montejo genuinely waive his right to have counsel present during his interaction with police? Do indigent defendants have to affirmatively accept counsel to prevent future police interrogations without an attorney present? V. The Holding Montejo did not affirmatively accept counsel during his preliminary hearing, but instead said nothing. The Court concluded that he had not asserted his right to counsel and that.
Case Summary Using Cbt
. Case Conceptualization using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Michelle Banks Liberty University Abstract Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a short-term, problem-focused, and goal-orientated form of psychotherapy. CBT is a form of treatment that focuses on the relationship between thoughts, emotions, and behavior. Dysfunctional automatic thoughts, maladaptive assumptions, and maladaptive behaviors are three focuses of CBT. Cognitive behavioral therapy is one of the most extensively researched forms of psychotherapy. There are various ethical issues and several multi-cultural issues that need to be considered with CBT case formulation. Intake discussions with client and analysis of her assessment information suggest a pattern of dysfunctional automatic thoughts, maladaptive assumptions, and maladaptive behaviors. CBT techniques that will be used with client are behavioral activation, monitoring automatic thoughts, and exposure therapy. There may be spiritual challenges in utilizing Christian counseling with CBT. CBT and Christian counseling have are both compatible and incompatible. Case Conceptualization using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a short-term, problem-focused, and goal-orientated form of psychotherapy (Beck, 2011). CBT is not one specific treatment approach rather it includes a combination of elements from cognitive, behavior, and emotion therapy (Murdock, 2013). CBT is a continuously evolving.
Central Park Five
. took over the headlines in the news and tabloids for weeks and weeks as the hungry press took the perfect golden opportunity to whip up a frenzy attack against the black middle-working class and their youths. Trisha Meili suffered from memory loss and multiple head traumas that failed to allow her to identify her attackers and therefore could not say much during the investigation. The documentary was made to open the eyes of the public by interviewing the now-adult males who suffered horrendously at a group of a vindictive and unjust legal system along with the media coverage. The general perceptions about crime and crime control practices in New York City during the late 1980s were beyond anyone’s imagination and at its worst time in history. Social tensions were high, as deteriorating economic conditions and budget cuts raised the record levels of crime activity in the city, having at least 6 murders a day. Most homicides were young, poor black people and during the 1984, was when crack wars started as all.
. were born, 20 years, 50 years and 100 years ago. They were to present this in front of a panel in specific schedules their professor has given. This also served as their final exam for the second term of school year 2012 – 2011. They were to follow the APA style in doing the paper including a bibliography of the same format. The research is very useful in their course, which is Bachelor of Arts Major in Consular and Diplomatic Affairs, because it concerns historical headlines around the world and their course mostly consists of majors in history. They may also improve their research making skills and strategies in the study because it requires them to consult more sources for a precise and reliable study. Based on this study, many historical events did happen on the same month of the researcher’s birthday. Some created great effect on today and others are just headlines that shook the world. It’s a way of discovering new things about history and also getting to remember it because it took a mindful of research to get all the information. It also serves as an achievement for a student to create a research paper and applying all that they have learned in their subject. BODY January 31, 1996 50 Dead in Sri Lanka suicide bombing BBC News UK (1996) reported more than 50 citizens of Sri Lanka died during a suicide bombing at the country’s central bank while 1,400 were injured. There was a truckload of explosives that crashed into the bank which triggered the bombing. Many.
. In an effort to better understand the beliefs and teachings of The Catholic Church, I thought that it would be prudent to not only research the topic, but also to speak with a member of the Catholic faith. That being said, I began my research by educating myself on the particulars of the Catholic faith before speaking with Josefina (Josie) Ramirez. Josie, a 53 year old native of Lake Jackson, Texas, was raised Catholic, is quite devout, and takes all of the teachings of and dictates of the Catholic Church to heart. When asked what differentiates the Catholic Church from the Protestant version of Christianity, Josie indicated that one area was how Catholics regard religious authority. “[Protestants] seem to turn only to the Bible for religious instruction. It seems to me that they listen to their ministers, but stick to their own opinions if they disagree with anything. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the traditions of 2000 years of study, prayer, and revelation are not something to be disregarded. Nothing in Catholicism contradicts the Bible, but we have the advantage of all those centuries of thought and guidance to help explain the mysteries of Christianity and how to lead a better life.” Most scholarly Catholic websites seem to justify Josie’s perception, by suggesting that while “Christ is [Catholicism’s] primary authority this authority has been passed from Christ to His Apostles” (Basic Catholic). While the Catholic Church recognizes the.