Preview

The Privilege of Silence

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
3683 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Privilege of Silence
How Should China Establish The Privilege of Silence System in Criminal Proceedings?
Wenxuan Ma

1. The origin and the connotations of the Privilege of Silence.
"Miranda warning" originated from a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966: an 18-year-old girl was kidnapped and raped, she identified that it was Miranda who did that. The police interrogated Miranda and used his confession as the hearing testimony. After Miranda was convicted he appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the police did not inform him of the right to remain silent, and his confession was concocted under pressure. He said that if he had been told to have a privilege of silence, he would have not made up that confession. After considering all the arguments, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Miranda confession invalid. Because of this jurisprudence, when arresting or interrogating suspects, the police need to say the "Miranda warning" first. This is how the privilege of silence was born in the judicial system.
The Privilege of Silence contains the following connotations: First, the suspect has no obligation to say words which might be detrimental to his/her own, the prosecution agencies or the courts can not use inhuman or degrading methods to force him to say; Second, the suspect has the right to always keep silent during the interrogation, and the judge can not make the adjudication against him/her because his/her silence; Third, before the suspect says the favorable or unfavorable word to him/her, he/she has the right to know the consequences of these words. And he/she must be voluntary to say. If the suspect was forced to speak, the court cannot use these words as the evidence.

2. The Privilege of Silence in China
In China, the Privilege of Silence has not yet been established. This is inseparable with China's actual situation. In China’s judicial practice, on one hand, due to the comparatively poorly developed investigation technology, the testimony of the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In order for an admission to be admissible in court, prior to interrogation, the individual must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. In addition, the warning to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything can be used against the individual in court, and that the individual has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and if they can not afford one, then one will be appointed to them. Also, if the individual waives his right to remain silent and for counsel to be present, the police must show that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Reynold Lancaster discussed how the Miranda warning is used by police officers and other law enforcements when they arrest a person of interest. The Miranda warning allows the officers…

    • 326 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    2. I definitely feel like the Miranda Warning is still a valid concept. I feel like reminds the suspect that they still have rights and they are still innocent until proven guilty. Being a suspect of any crime is probably very scary and can be overwhelming with emotions.…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    In 1966 Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark of a decision to the United States Supreme Court, in which this was passed because it had four out of five agreeing. The Court held both exculpatory and inculpatory statements in which was made in response to interrogation by the person who is in the custody of the police who will be used in a trial only if the prosecution is able to show that the accused was informed of their right to consult with a lawyer before and even during any questioning and have the right against…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Miranda warning is a statement that informs individuals of their Fifth Amendment rights. It is needed anytime custodial interrogation takes place or when a person has been taken into custody or has otherwise been deprived of freedom. However, the Supreme Court has said that Miranda warnings are not constitutionally guaranteed, but rather they exist to aid in the protection of Fifth Amendment rights. So essentially, the purpose of Miranda warnings are only to decide on the admissibility of evidence in a court of law.…

    • 256 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda and it also enforced the Miranda warning to be given to a person being interrogated while in the custody of the police.…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Over the years the Miranda rights are used to ensure justice and preserve liberty ever since the case Miranda v. Arizona. All though people may see the Miranda Rights/ warning as an act of not trying to ensure justice it is because if we didn't use them today then there would be many more cases like Miranda v. Arizona and lead to a corruptio in our police stations atound th…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda never knew he did not have to speak with the police was interrogated and confessed and was sentenced to jail. Later an attorney looked over the case and requested Judicial Review Claiming that Ernesto’s rights has been violated. In 1966 The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s Conviction, and ruled that if a person is going to be taken in as a suspect they must be informed that they do have a right to and attorney. The suspect also has to be informed that the do not have to speak. The supreme court also ruled that if the suspect is not informed of these right the evidence obtained before hand can not be used in court. These rights are now known as the Miranda rights.…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Janet Ainsworth

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Ainsworth shows that this is not the case, as the reading of the Miranda Rights was brought about by the Supreme Court as a compromise to keep the effectiveness of interrogation without violating the rights of the suspect. By making the reading of the Miranda Rights legal and necessary, suspects are made aware of their rights but are not told how to bring them about. This also means that it is incredibly easy for suspects to waive their rights by simply using incorrect wording or even not speaking at all. The reading also serves the purpose of allowing police to interrogate. Of course, the very need for the Miranda Rights suggests that there is an innate injustice in the use of interrogation. This is because of the inherent power dynamic between the police officers and the suspects. Officers hold sway over the suspects and know very well how to use legal language. The typical suspect does not and because of this sense of powerlessness is therefore submissive to the officer, which leads to meek behavior and language. They lack the authority necessary in using legal language to bring about the actions they would require, such as a lawyer, if they even realized they were in need of…

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda," or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview.…

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Canadian criminal law there has been no issue more contentious than that of the confession and its admissibility in court. Prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the only question for the court was the reliability of a forced confession. Since 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada, through the application of the Charter, continues to redraw the rules on confessions and evidence admissibility. This paper takes the position that the manner in which a confession has been obtained has become more important than its factual reliability, based upon relevant decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. To understand current judicial thought on admissibility of confessions, this paper will discuss historical developments in this field and the need to keep justice out of disrepute. This paper will examine several significant cases in which the courts were called upon to balance the need to convict criminals with the need to protect the rights of these same accused person granted by the Charter. Ultimately, through examination of these cases and other relevant documents such at the United Nations Convention Against Torture, this paper will conclude whether a forced but reliable pre-Charter confession discussed in R vs. Wray would be admissible in the legal landscape of today.…

    • 306 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    2. The right of silence and presumption of innocence:At Common Law, such right is limited. Some statutory offenses now require the defendant to perform certain acts or else he can be found guilty for not doing so. That means that an accused person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. Although innocence is presumed at Common Law, the onus of proof is on the defendant in certain offenses as enacted by statutes.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    S78 and 76 Pace

    • 3788 Words
    • 16 Pages

    This essay will critically examine entrapment in the light of judicial discretion and the courts power to stay proceedings. It shall also critically discuss the relationship between the two.…

    • 3788 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    From the Western point of view China’s Criminal Justice System has a large number of deficiencies[1]. The case of prohibition of torture and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence was not exempt from those criticisms. On 2009, the Executive Director of the Asia Program at Human Rights Watch, says: “The criminal justice system remains plagued by forced confessions and torture…"[2] However, it must be recognized that since 1979, when the former criminal procedure law was adopted, until the 2010’ exclusionary rules of illegally obtained evidence, and even more recently the draft of the Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, China has been taking steps to major reforms[3]. As some scholars stated, China’s legal system is a work in progress, and the purpose of this paper is to see how that progress is taking place with respect of prohibition of torture.…

    • 5030 Words
    • 21 Pages
    Powerful Essays