【双语】米兰达警告 Miranda Warning


“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 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?”





The Miranda Warning is a police warning which is given to criminal suspects who are in the custody of law enforcement in the United States before they can ask questions regarding what took place during the crime.

执法部门只能要求提供特定信息,例如姓名、出生日期和地址,而不必向嫌疑人宣读米兰达警告。除非你被告知并放弃了你的 "米兰达权利",否则你向他们提供的供词和其他信息不会构成可接受的证据。

Law enforcement can only ask for specific information such as name, date of birth and address without having to read the suspects their Miranda warnings. Confessions and other information that you provide them will not make up admissible evidence unless you have been made aware of and waived your "Miranda rights."

米兰达警告是1966年美国最高法院在 "米兰达诉亚利桑那州 "一案中作出的裁决,目的是保护犯罪嫌疑人在警察审讯期间避免自证其罪的第五修正案权利。这曾被认为是被”严刑逼供”。

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as to protect a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to help avoid self-incrimination during police interrogation. This was once referred to as undergoing the ‘third degree.’

third degree:严刑逼供

Miranda Rights vs Miranda Warning


The Miranda rights are the rights that you, as an individual citizen of the United States, have.

The Miranda warning would be when the officer or law enforcement personnel inform you of what those rights are.

History of Miranda Warning

恐吓或胁迫的警察审讯方法曾经通常被称为经历 "三度"。今天,为了保护任何可能发生的警察恐吓,我们有了米兰达警告。

Intimidating or coercive methods of police interrogation were once commonly referred to as undergoing the ‘third degree.’ Today, as protection against any possibility of police intimidation, we have the Miranda Warning.


On June 13, 1966, the outcome of Miranda v. Arizona provided that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when they are placed under arrest. This decision was based on a case in which a defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was accused of robbery, kidnapping, and rape. During police interrogation, he confessed to the crimes.


The conviction was overturned due to allegedly intimidating police interrogation methods. After a retrial that included witnesses and other evidence, Miranda was again convicted. His trial was, however, then assured of being fair, and the original conviction was reasonably upheld without question.


In 1964 the results of another trial, Escobedo v. Illinois, additionally provided that a suspect has the right to counsel being present during police questioning or to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police if the police intend to use the answers against the suspect at a trial, or if the person being questioned is being detained and questioned against their will.


In 1968 the finalized text for the Miranda Warning was provided by California deputy attorney general Doris Maier and district attorney Harold Berliner.


Prior to the institution of the Miranda Warning, confessions need only be voluntary on the part of the suspect. This created a difficult situation for police, who were then often faced with evidence at trial that the person was not of sound mind or were under circumstantial duress when they gave their confession.


The Miranda Warning protects an individual’s rights by explaining their options clearly and upholds police authority when they properly read the Miranda Warning and get a clear, intelligent answer that the suspect understands his or her rights as they have been explained. The Miranda Warning is a legal necessity throughout the United States, and varies only slightly in its wording in different states.



1. 本站内所有应用软件及资料(除原创内容外)均来源于网络,如本站的内容对您的权利造成了影响,请与我们联系,我们会在第一时间进行修改或删除。
2. 本站相关软件资源,仅供研究和学习使用,请在下载后24小时内删除。日常使用及商业用途的,请务必支持和购买正版。
3. 本站默认解压密码为:wadesays



发送评论 编辑评论