Miranda Warning Debate
“You 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 speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.” The famous words addressed to suspects date back to the U.S. Supreme Court landmark ruling of 1966 in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.
The case changed the way police handle those arrested for crimes. Before questioning any suspect who has been arrested, police now give the suspect his/her Miranda rights, or read them the Miranda warning.
The case involved Ernesto Miranda of Phoenix, Arizona. He was a needy twenty-three-year-old who had not completed the ninth grade and had a criminal record. Police, investigating a series of robberies and rapes in the spring of 1962, arrested Miranda at his home in Arizona and took him directly to a Phoenix police station. There he was taken to an “interrogation room,” where he was questioned about the crimes. At first, Miranda maintained his innocence, but after two hours of questioning, the police emerged from the room with Miranda’s signed written confession. At his trial, Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge.
Miranda’s court-appointed attorney appealed the case on the grounds that Miranda did not understand that he had the right against self-incrimination: the police admitted that neither before, nor during the questioning, had Miranda been advised of his right to consult with an attorney nor his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Thus, Miranda’s lawyer claimed, the police violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which says, “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The issue in question was whether the Fifth Amendment applied to the in-custody police interrogation or, as was the practice until the mid-1960s, only to the court proceedings.
The text of the Supreme Court decision began with a review of police interrogation practices, which were considered by many to be deceptive and intimidating. Thus the Supreme Court sent a notice to the law enforcement community that the Court was aware of, and would not tolerate, abuse in interrogation. The Court struck down Miranda's conviction, ruling that the 5th Amendment requires police to inform suspects of their rights. The Court then outlined the now-familiar procedures that law enforcement officers were to follow. As a consequence, ever since the Miranda decision, police have carried cards that they use to inform the suspects of their rights.
The Miranda decision was controversial. Many law enforcement officials complained the decision “handcuffed the police.” Some Americans believed that it was unfair to inform suspected criminals of their rights and argued the ruling would contribute to an increase in crime. As the years wore on, however, Miranda grew to be familiar and widely accepted. Americans began to feel that the warnings contributed to the legitimacy of police interrogations. In the actual practice, it was found that many suspects waived their Miranda rights and confessed anyway.
The decision did little good to Ernesto Miranda. He was retried without the confession and again convicted. He served almost 10 years before being paroled. Then he returned to his old neighborhood and made modest living by autographing police officers' "Miranda cards" and selling them for $1.50 each. A year later, he was stabbed to death in a bar fight. The prime suspects in his killing were read their Miranda rights, did not implicate themselves, and were never prosecuted.
Key Words: Find in the text the English translation for the following: a) преступления: ограбить, изнасиловать, похитить, убить, ранить ножом; b) обеспечение правопорядка: полиция, арестовывать, допрашивать, подозревать, предупреждение, судимость, расследовать, полицейский участок, признаваться, давать показания, под стражей, надевать наручники, отказываться от права; c) судебный процесс: суд, адвокат, юрист, постановление суда, невиновность, признать виновным, приговорить к заключению по обвинению в чем-либо, назначенный судом адвокат, подавать апелляцию, опротестовать приговор, осудить, отсидеть срок, условно-досрочное освобождение, преследовать судебным порядком.
|