There are two constitutional rules related to Miranda rule: one is the fifth amendment to the Constitution, that is, in criminal trials, no one can be forced to be a witness to prove his guilt; No one shall be deprived of life, freedom or property rights without due process. Referred to as "not forcing self-incrimination". The Fifth Amendment applies to criminal trial procedures in the federal judicial system. The second is the fourteenth amendment, that is, no one can be deprived of life, freedom or property rights without due process of law. Known as the "due process of law" clause. The amendment applies to state and local judicial systems. In 1964, the Federal Supreme Court unified two clauses in maloney v. Hogan. It is pointed out that the right not to incriminate oneself is a basic human right, and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is applicable to all countries. Therefore, whether in the federal judicial system or the state judicial system, the constitutional rule of self-incrimination is applicable. Miranda wrote in the judgment, "In order to protect this privilege, procedural safeguards must be taken. If you don't take other effective ways to inform someone that you have the right to remain silent and ensure that the implementation of this right is carefully protected, then you need to take the following measures: before being questioned, you should inform him; He has the right to remain silent. Anything he hears will be used as evidence against him in a court trial. He has the right to hire a lawyer. If he can't afford a lawyer, he can appoint a lawyer for him before any start, if he wants. Opportunities to exercise these rights should be provided throughout the trial. After giving these notices and providing corresponding opportunities, one can give up these rights knowingly and rationally, and answer questions or make statements freely. However, if there is no such notice, or the prosecution fails to prove that the defendant gave up these rights during the trial, then any evidence obtained from it cannot be used against him. " It can be seen that Miranda judgment has created a procedural guarantee for protecting the privilege of not being forced to testify against oneself, which is of positive significance.
Before Miranda's judgment, the judicial authorities judged the confession according to the "voluntary test". According to this rule, the judge should consider all relevant circumstances, not only the defendant's own situation, but also the specific circumstances of interrogation when examining whether the confession is the product of forced self-incrimination. Gradually, this rule has been criticized as related to almost all factors, but almost none of them are decisive. The Supreme Court concluded that this traditional voluntary rule has intolerable instability. As Miranda's judgment shows, the police should inform the suspects of their rights before the trial; What will happen if the police don't inform them of these rights? Thus, it provides a concise, unified and objective standard for the admissibility of confession, so as to better protect citizens' right not to force self-incrimination.
Before Miranda, the police usually questioned the defendant in secret, and lawyers were excluded. This kind of interrogation procedure, which is isolated from the outside world, encourages the police to obtain evidence illegally, which is a well-known fact in the United States in the middle of the twentieth century. Under the pressure of the public and the judiciary, the police changed their interrogation strategy, from physical coercion to psychological coercion, in order to obtain the suspect's guilty confession. This is also clearly seen in Miranda's judgment. "In Miranda's case, the police arrested the defendant and took him to a special interrogation room to make him confess. Traditionally, the defendant's statements in these cases may not be unconscious. Of course, our concern about the Fifth Amendment, which fully guarantees the preciousness of rights, has not diminished. In each case, the defendant was placed in a strange environment and subjected to compulsory interrogation by the police, which contained obvious potential coercive factors. For example, in the Miranda case, the defendant was a poor Mexican who was seriously troubled by the sexual fantasies claimed by the police. Although the case file shows that there is no obvious physical coercion or play, there is really no case where the police take appropriate measures to ensure that the defendant's statement is the product of free choice. Obviously, the main purpose of creating such an interrogation atmosphere is to conquer the will of the interrogated. This atmosphere itself contains the meaning of coercion. To be exact, this is not a physical threat, but it is equally destructive to human dignity. At present, the practice of isolated interrogation undermines one of the most precious principles of our country-one should not force someone to testify against oneself. If no protective measures are taken to eliminate the potential coercive factors contained in this detention environment, then any statement obtained by the defendant will not really become the product of his guilty plea choice. Through the previous analysis, we can easily find that there is a close relationship between the privilege of opposing self-incrimination and police custody and interrogation. " The procedural guarantee created by Miranda's judgment, to a certain extent, resisted the police's detention and interrogation, and protected citizens from being forced to testify against themselves.
Under this historical background, Miranda rule, a procedural guarantee created by Miranda judgment, is undoubtedly of positive and progressive significance. For the defendant, it can effectively protect the defendant's right not to be forced to testify against himself. For the police, we can standardize the interrogation behavior of the police and restrict them from using illegal means to force criminal suspects to make involuntary confessions; For the judiciary, it provides a more concise and effective basis for judges to judge the admissibility of confessions (br ig ht-line r rule).
See article: procedural justice from Miranda rule
I hope I can help you!