The Constitution sets out all the rights and freedoms of persons and regulates them according to definite laws. The rights should be regarded as a form of protection for every individual. However, many people don’t know what the real meaning of police warning is while they are being held in custody, when the question of Miranda Rights is discussed. These words, which the public often view as the usual advisory, are important to protect individuals and the Miranda Warning is used as declaration of the right to self-injury. However, the Miranda Warning was not used before 1966 as a compulsory preventive procedure.
The Miranda Warning declaration is the declaration of the rights for the person in custody. Before the questioning process is started, the procedure should be carried out. Police officers are required to inform the person arrested that before the lawyer is present they may remain silent. Miranda Warning contains several variants and can be different in various states.
Miranda Rights, Constitution, Article 20(3), Self Incrimination, Silent, Attorney, Aware, detainment, arrest, Section 25 of IEA.
- HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
Following the historical event of the Miranda v Arizona case, the Miranda rights were established.
In fact, Arizona is a small state in south-west America. On the other hand, Miranda is a short “Miranda Warning” form.
A man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested on 13 March 1963 in the Phoenix Police Department. The arrest was based on circumstances which led to Miranda’s abduction and rape, about 10 years earlier, of an 18-year-old defenceless woman. Miranda was interrogated for over 2 hours under police custody and subsequently signed a confession to rape charges including the following declaration:
“I hereby swear that this statement I am making is voluntary and out of my own free will. I made this statement without being threatened, submitted to coercion or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of my legal rights. I also understand that any statement I make will be used against me in a court of law.”
Mr. Miranda was actually not made aware of his lawyers’ rights; he was not made aware of his right to remain silent either. Furthermore, Miranda had not been informed of the use in the court of law of all his actions and words. During the trials Ernesto’s signed documents were offered by the prosecutors as evidence of confession, irrespective of the right he was to sign before the documents were submitted to him orally. Alvin Moore was named Ernesto’s lawyer by the courts (Morgan, 2010). The lawyer objected to the facts that the above information did not fully support his confession. The proof should therefore be excluded. Miranda was also sentenced by the judge to 20-30 years in prison. Moore continued and appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that Miranda’s confession was not completely voluntary. However, the Supreme Court rejected its appeal stating that Miranda himself did not seek an attorney.
Following the historical event of the Miranda v Arizona case, the Miranda rights were established. The 5th amendment in the constitution, known as the rights of Miranda, was therefore decided by the Supreme Court in19 66. These rights have been designed to inform the suspects of the criminal offences what actions can be taken under police detention.
- “You have the right to remain silent”
- “Anything you choose to say will and can be used against you in a court of law”
- “You have full rights to an attorney”
- “If one cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided/ appointed for you.”
- What Happened to Ernesto Miranda?
In fact, Ernesto Miranda was given a new trial based on the ruling of the Supreme Court and its original confession was expelled. However, Miranda was again charged of abduction and violation and served 11 years in prison prior to parolicing in 1972 on the basis of evidence. Miranda was stabbed in a barroom brawl in 1976 at the age of 34. A suspect was arrested by the police in the murder that was released without charge after choosing to exercise Miranda’s right to remain silent.
- MIRANDA RIGHTS:
The following is the standard 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 speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”
Each State makes its own rules on exactly what must be communicated to suspects who have been arrested or detained by police for interrogation, but the Supreme Court ruling requires clearly communicating the following four points:
1. You Have the Right to Remain Silent
Silence cannot be used in court against the accused. However, a term called “pre-Miranda silence” is used when a suspect is not read and still remains silent in his/her Miranda rights. Silence can then be regarded as unusual and suspicious. Those who say anything like “my attorney always told me not to make statements without him,” could avoid the negative effects of refusing to speak.
2. Anything You Say can Be Used Against You in a Court of Law
All suspects are entitled to be silent. Those who give up their rights face the prospect of their statements being brought to justice against them. This can be complicated, since often the only proof against an accused is a faith. Defense lawyers claim that many innocent suspects are allowed to talk to police without realising their hazard, being intimidated by arrest and interview.
3. You Have the Right to Have an Attorney Present
This enables a suspect to have legal counsel in attendance at the time of the questioning. An individual should be made aware, that before responding to any question by police, that he or she has the right to consult a lawyer and have an attorney present.
4. If You Cannot Afford an Attorney, One Will Be Appointed to You
To ensure a person is clearly aware of his or her rights, the suspect must be advised that a lawyer is appointed without charge if necessary. The caution against consulting a lawyer could be understood and made meaningless without this additional advisory.
- Applicability Of Miranda Rights in India:
Article 22,( 1) of the Indian Constitution states that “no [person] shall be detained without prompt notice of the reason for the arrest and shall not be denied the right to seek advice and protection from an attorney for election purposes. In 1997, the Supreme Court of India set specific guidelines to be followed at the time of arrest. This includes that the person arrested must be aware that he or she has the right to know of the arrest.
Clause 3 of Article 20 of the Constitution states that “a person accused of a crime may not be forced to testify against himself.”
According to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, confession to the police is not permitted as evidence of a crime.
Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Act also stipulates that if a written statement submitted to the police during the investigation process is submitted in writing, the offender will not sign and will not be subject to investigation or trial in relation to: Crime under investigation. One form of this recognition rule appears to have been included in the Criminal Procedure Act when it was first enacted in 1861. In 1960, the Supreme Court paid attention to the accreditation law and warned: ‘(1) A statement to the police officer cannot be proved by the audience in which the defendant participated, and (2) the person making the affidavit should not be notified of.
According to the Criminal Procedure Act, only metropolitan magistrates or judicial officers can register confessions and statements during an investigation. Before the court registers for approval, the judge must declare to the issuer: “There is no obligation to approve, and if approved, it can be used as evidence against it, and the magistrate must promise approval.” If there is no reason to believe that he did it voluntarily after interrogating the culprit. ”
- The Concept of Self – Incrimination
The concept of self-incrimination has legal roots in US and UK case law, so no one can be forced to provide evidence that could lead to criminal prosecution. Historically, legal protection against self-discrimination has been directly related to the issue of torture for information and confession.
The Fundamental right applies to the 5th Amendment in the United States and covers almost the same language as Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The basic rules of the Criminal Code on self-discrimination have been changed to the constitutional rule in article 20, clause 3, which states that “a person accused of a crime cannot force testimony against himself”. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution provides for the right to self-discrimination, including the right to remain silent and extend interrogation during an investigation, the accused and the accused are also prosecuted.
- Development of this Right in different spheres:
In India, the rule of withdrawal was mostly unfavourable until 1861. After the Constitution came into force, Section 342(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 was criticized for violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Banvarilal v. State, the court concluded that, in section 2 of Article 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it assumed some form of enforcement, but did not say at all that he would force him to be a witness against him. India’s criminal system has adopted a controversial judicial system that claims that anyone arrested or detained by the authorities on the grounds that he has committed a crime should be considered innocent, and in itself is prosecuted. There is no reasonable doubt what it takes to prove his guilt.
This order targets anyone accused of a crime and prohibits any form of coercion to make him a witness to himself. M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra, the Supreme Court noted that this right includes:
- It is a right owned by a suspected criminal.
. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra. In the first intelligence report of a police investigation ordered by a magistrate, the accused defendant could claim defense of this order,
- It is a protection against compulsion to be a witness.
Bombay Province v. Supreme Court Kathy Kalu said that the phrase Witnesses was M.P. Sharma case not required; The person leaves fingerprints, letters, or signatures, but this could be the same as providing broader evidence not included in the phrase “being a witness”..
- Compulsion to give evidence against himself
. The simple requirements for police officers to investigate a crime against a specific person do not fall within the meaning of article 20, clause 3 of the Constitution.
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, the Supreme Court greatly expanded the scope of section 20(3). The court found that the section 20(3) ban does not start in court, but rather goes back to the stage of police interrogation.
The Indian Constitution turns the rule on self-discrimination into a constitutional prohibition. The prohibitions under Article 20 (3) apply directly to criminal proceedings during police investigations and court proceedings. The purpose of this defense is to prevent torture and inhumane treatment of defendants by investigative authorities in order to obtain confession.
Just like the Miranda Rights, India has equivalent rights. Some of them include the Article – 20, where it speaks regarding the arrest and everything. Miranda Rights means, the accused has the right to remain silent, he can appoint his own lawyer, if in case he can’t afford, then the state can provide him with an attorney, and he should be aware that whatever word he says, can be used against him in the court. India has its own Criminal Defense manual. From this point of view, the privilege of non-self-incrimination loses much of its effectiveness in this age of management process growth.