659 s Brana arsearchhs 659 a Menu csearch�
search Menu eai Hvezdna e
659 s Menu a Hvezdna cusearche Hvezdna r Menu h 659 Brana e Hvezdna ain Online ds Menu u Online Mnu 
search5search Serialy 5search r 659 ea Brana c Online a Menu 6search9 659 y Serialy sarc Brana Serialy D Online t Hvezdna isearched Detainedslut l 659 t 659 ea Menu Hv Serialy zd 659 a Online esearcheac
sl
Online 
nsearchisearche Menu � Serialy e Brana r Serialy h
» Chasing Dream追逐梦想
» 日志
上一篇 / 下一篇 2006-09-17 18:55:00 / 个人分类：专业
“你有权保持沉默！”——米兰达警告的由来
熟悉美国警匪片的朋友们，对警察向犯罪嫌疑人说出的第一句话都耳熟能详：“你有权保持沉默。如果你不保持沉默，那么你所说的一切都能够用来在法庭作为控告你的证据。你有权在受审时请律师在一旁咨询。如果你付不起律师费的话，法庭会为你免费提供律师。你是否完全了解你的上述权利？”这句话就是著名的“米兰达警告”，也称“米兰达告诫”，即犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在被讯问时，有保持沉默和拒绝回答的权利。这一告诫的形成，缘于美国的一个案例。
事情是这样的：米兰达是一个青年，他在1963年被亚利桑那凤凰城警方以绑架和强奸一个18岁弱智少女罪名逮捕。他在警察局接受了两小时的讯问后，签下一份坦白文件。但是事后，他又说并不知道“宪法第五修正案”赋予了他沉默的权利。也就是说，米兰达不知道自己有沉默权，也不知道自己有取得律师帮助的权利，而警察也没有告诉过他。他的律师在法庭上抗议说，根据宪法，米兰达的坦白不可以作为对所犯罪行供认不讳的证据。虽然宪法修正案已经存在了近200年，直到上世纪60年代初，美国司法一直沿用历史上传下来的原则：要是嫌犯“自愿”作出的坦白，就可以递交法庭作为证据。并不强调警察必须告知嫌犯他有什么样的权利。“自愿”而不是强迫，是那个时候惟一的标准。所以，米兰达的坦白还是作为主要证据，在法庭上将他定了罪。他被判了20年监禁。他以自己“没有被告知权利”作为理由，一路上诉到联邦最高法院，接受最高法院的复审。
1966年，沃伦首席***官主持的最高法院作出裁决，指出公民在接受讯问以前有权知道自己的宪法第五修正案权利，警察有义务将它告诉嫌犯，告知权利之后，才能讯问。因此，米兰达一案被宣布无效，发回重审。
从此以后，如果美国警察在抓人的时候忘了这几句关键的话，那么人犯所作的一切供词在审理时都将被判无效，而最终人犯也可能会被法庭放走，因为他的权利在逮捕时受到了侵犯。自1966年起，美国所有的警察在讯问嫌犯以前，都必须将“米兰达警告”先告诉嫌犯，不管警察那时候是多么忙乱，多么匆忙，心情多么不好，形势是多么紧张。这就是著名的“米兰达警告”的由来。
米兰达一案发回重审的结果：最高法院作出米兰达一案裁决以后，米兰达一案重新开庭，重新甄选陪审员，重新递审证据。米兰达本人原来的坦白当然是不能用了，幸好检方找到了新的证据。米兰达曾经跟以前的女朋友吹嘘过自己的犯罪经历，警察找到了这个女朋友，她在法庭上作了证。米兰达再次被判定有罪。1972年，米兰达获假释出狱。1976年，34岁的米兰达在酒吧里与人争执斗殴，被刺身亡。警察逮捕了一个刺杀他的嫌疑犯。在讯问开始前，警察向嫌犯传达了“米兰达警告”，嫌犯选择保持沉默，但警察还是依法将其起诉。
米兰达因此声名鹊起!
英文资料
The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.
Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.
This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.
k659 Detainedslut Hr Menu Serialy Online Hvezdna Brana Detained Slut 米兰达警告-the Miranda Warning - Chasing Dream追逐梦想 - 西北政法大学-西政在线 西北政法大学论坛-西北政法大学研究生论坛 - Powered by X-Spacen Detained Slut z659 Detainedslut Hr Menu Serialy Online Hvezdna Brana Detained Slut 米兰达警告-the Miranda Warning - Chasing Dream追逐梦想 - 西北政法大学-西政在线 西北政法大学论坛-西北政法大学研究生论坛 - Powered by X-Spacez n n Detained Slut Detained Slut Hardcore