Context of "Miranda Warning"
-Miranda v Arizona1963 late at night on March 3, a girl (18 years old) working in a cinema in Phoenix, Arizona, USA came home from work, and suddenly a car stopped in front of her. A man got out of the car, grabbed his arm, put a hand over his mouth, stuffed her into the back seat of the car, bound her hands and feet, and raped her in the car. After the girl was released, she immediately ran home to call the police. According to her description, the police arrested Miranda on March 13. After the arrest, the police "lined up" the defendant, and the victim girl identified Miranda as a criminal on the spot. Miranda also confessed, wrote a confession and signed it. Taking Miranda's confession and confession as evidence, the court found Miranda guilty of kidnapping and rape, and sentenced her to 20 years and 30 years in prison respectively. Miranda refused to accept it. In prison, she repeatedly wrote to the Supreme Court of the United States to appeal, and finally succeeded. This is a landmark case of Miranda v Arizona in the field of American criminal procedure. The defendant thought that his confession at that time was forced, and the police violated Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment, which stipulates that the defendant shall not be forced to testify against himself. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed with the defendant that although the defendant was not physically forced, and no one even told him directly that he had to confess, "psychological" coercion existed. In the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court, it was announced that the "atmosphere" in the interrogation room of the police station was worrying. Modern interrogation adopts "attacking the heart" tactics. The trial was held indoors, isolated from the outside world, and the scene was full of police except the defendant. What the police asked was not whether the defendant did it, but why. In addition, the police also use various methods to relax the vigilance of interrogators, such as often pretending sympathy or shifting the responsibility of crimes to the victims or society, so that interrogators feel that the case is not so serious; Or carrots and sticks, sometimes rough and sometimes gentle. All this, according to the Federal Supreme Court, has caused great psychological pressure to interrogators, and the credibility of such confessions is very low and should not be used as legal evidence. Therefore, the Federal Supreme Court clearly stipulates that before the trial, the police must clearly tell the interrogators: (1) have the right to remain silent; (2) If you choose to answer, everything you say may be used as evidence against you; (3) Have the right to ask a lawyer to appear in court; (4) If there is no money to hire a lawyer, the court is obliged to appoint a lawyer for him. This is the famous "Miranda warning" produced by Miranda v Arizona. If the police do not give the above four warnings in advance during the trial, the confession of the interrogated person will not be allowed to enter the judicial process as evidence. In the more than 30 years since the Miranda case was decided, this legal provision is now well known to American women and children. So after a suspect is arrested, he usually says "I want to talk to my lawyer" or "I don't want to talk about anything until I talk to my lawyer."