“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.
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.’
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
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.