Suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent before being questioned
The above phrase is one of the most recognized in the U.S. criminal justice system. It has been included in so many TV shows and movies that I imagine many people will automatically continue to recite the rest of the words! Show June 13, 2016, was the 50th anniversary of the famous Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to what is now commonly referred to as the “Miranda warning.” This week, the Law Library of Congress will hold an event about the depiction of law in popular culture, which will include a montage of film clips showing the reading of the Miranda warning in movies and TV shows over the last 50 years. The Law Library has also produced an online publication commemorating the 50th anniversary of the decision. There you can find various documents, including “exchanges among key stakeholders from the time of the trial, a few of whom are now historical figures of great renown.” Due to the sheer number of references to the warning in popular culture, people in many other countries might also have a pretty good knowledge of its content and wording. But do their own police officers actually use the same, or similar, warnings when arresting or questioning suspects? If you’ve ever wondered about the answer to this question, or if you’ve just started wondering about it now, the Law Library has a great resource for you. We have published on our website a report, titled Miranda Warning Equivalents Abroad, that provides information on the requirements for law enforcement officers in 108 countries to inform persons arrested or questioned for an offense of their right to remain silent and/or right to consult a lawyer. Where possible, our foreign law specialists and analysts have included the actual wording that is to be used in a particular country. “No. 2605. A nut cracker.” (“Photograph shows policeman holding a nightstick.”) (c. 1909.) Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, //hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3a27094. The countries have been divided into their respective regions: Americas and the Caribbean, East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. As you look through the different entries, you will see that in some countries a requirement to inform a suspect of his or her rights is specifically set out in legislation or constitutional provisions; in others, the requirements have come from court decisions; and in some cases there are other relevant documents, such as police manuals and rules issued by judges. There might even be a combination of some or all of these different approaches. Many Commonwealth countries, for example, historically applied a form of caution expressed in the English Judges’ Rules, which date back to 1912. In some cases these rules are still referred to, but in many of the countries there are now relevant statutory provisions and other documents that set out the requirements. A quick search through the report for references to constitutions shows that constitutional provisions explicitly require that certain rights information and cautions be given to suspects in at least twelve countries. It is far more common for the requirement to be included in a country’s criminal procedure code. I found around 40 references to such codes in the report (although constitutional provisions might also be relevant in some of the countries). In several countries, the relevant provisions are found in legislation that sets out the powers and responsibilities of police. The laws of some countries specifically require that a person be informed of their rights in a language that he or she understands, and even provide that a police officer check that the person does in fact understand what they have been told. While we didn’t locate the actual wording of the warnings given by police for many countries, here is a selection of what we did find: Canada
Queensland, Australia
Philippines
Solomon Islands
Botswana
This was a very interesting report to research, and we hope you enjoy reading it! Please note: The link http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/ has been retired. The collections previously accessible through this link will be available on Law.gov. Please check our digital projects webpage for the current status and for new links when they become available. What is the right to remain silent based on?The Right to Remain Silent
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being compelled to give testimony that could incriminate them. This is not the same as saying that a person has a right to silence at all times. In some situations, police may use silence itself as incriminating evidence.
Can I remain silent during a police interrogation?The “Right to Silence” in the United States
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
What is the right to remain silent in Philippines?Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
What is the law of silence?The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
|