双语有声阅读：米兰达权利
[align=center][size=6][b][url=http://res.wx.qq.com/voice/getvoice?mediaid=MjM5MzExNTMwMF8yNjQ5NTc2NzMw]点击收听[/url][/b][/size][/align][align=center][size=4]
[/size][/align]
[align=center][size=4][color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]When you watch an American film or TV play，you notice that while a policeman or a lieutenant is cuffing a suspect he is saying something or reading something from a piece of paper to him．What he is saying or reading is called Miranda Rights．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]Under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America a person accused of a crime has the right to the assistance of an attorney3)．A suspect has the priviledge against self incrimination．This means that a suspect has the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify against himself．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]For many years the Supreme Court held that a confession was not admissible as evidence if it was not voluntary and trustworthy．This meant that the use of physical force，torture7)，threats，or other techniques that could force an innocent person to confess was prohibited．Later，in the case of Escobedov．Illinois，the Supreme Court said that even a voluntary confession was inadmissible as evidence if it was obtained after denying the defendant' s request to talk with an attorney．While some defendants might ask for an attorney，other people might not be aware o f their right to remain silent or of their right to have a lawyer present during questioning．In １９６６，the Supreme Court was presented with such a situation in the case of Mirandav．Arizona．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]Emesto Miranda was accused of kidnap ping and raping an eighteen－year－old girl near Phoenix，Arizona．The girl claimed she was on her way home from work when a man grabbed her，threw her into the back seat of a car，andraped her．Ten days later Miranda was arrested，placed in a lineup，and identified by the girl as her attacker．The police then took Miranda into an interrogation8）room and questioned him for two hours．At the end of the two hours，the officers emerged with a written and signed confession．This confession was used as evidence at trial，and Miranda was found guilty．Miranda later appealed to the U．S．Supreme Court，arguing that he had not been warned of his right to remain silent and that he had been deprived of his right to counsel．Miranda did not suggest that his confession was false or brought about by coercion，but rather that he would not have confessed if he had been advised of his right to remain silent or of his right to an attorney． [/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]After considering all the arguments，the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used at trial because it was obtained without informing Miranda of his constitutional rights．As a result of this case，police are now required to inform persons accused of a crime of the following Miranda rights before questioning begins：[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]You have the right to remain silent．Anything you say can be used against you in court．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]You have the right to a lawyer and to have one present while you are being questioned．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]If you cannot afford a lawyer，one will be appointed for you before any questioning begins．[/font][/color][/size][/align]
[align=center][size=4]
[/size][/align]
[align=center][size=4]
[/size][/align]
[align=center][size=4]
[/size][/align]
[align=center][size=4]
[/size][/align] [size=4][color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]When you watch an American film or TV play，you notice that while a policeman or a lieutenant is cuffing a suspect he is saying something or reading something from a piece of paper to him．What he is saying or reading is called Miranda Rights．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]Under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America a person accused of a crime has the right to the assistance of an attorney3)．A suspect has the priviledge against self incrimination．This means that a suspect has the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify against himself．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]For many years the Supreme Court held that a confession was not admissible as evidence if it was not voluntary and trustworthy．This meant that the use of physical force，torture7)，threats，or other techniques that could force an innocent person to confess was prohibited．Later，in the case of Escobedov．Illinois，the Supreme Court said that even a voluntary confession was inadmissible as evidence if it was obtained after denying the defendant' s request to talk with an attorney．While some defendants might ask for an attorney，other people might not be aware o f their right to remain silent or of their right to have a lawyer present during questioning．In １９６６，the Supreme Court was presented with such a situation in the case of Mirandav．Arizona．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]Emesto Miranda was accused of kidnap ping and raping an eighteen－year－old girl near Phoenix，Arizona．The girl claimed she was on her way home from work when a man grabbed her，threw her into the back seat of a car，andraped her．Ten days later Miranda was arrested，placed in a lineup，and identified by the girl as her attacker．The police then took Miranda into an interrogation8）room and questioned him for two hours．At the end of the two hours，the officers emerged with a written and signed confession．This confession was used as evidence at trial，and Miranda was found guilty．Miranda later appealed to the U．S．Supreme Court，arguing that he had not been warned of his right to remain silent and that he had been deprived of his right to counsel．Miranda did not suggest that his confession was false or brought about by coercion，but rather that he would not have confessed if he had been advised of his right to remain silent or of his right to an attorney． [/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]After considering all the arguments，the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used at trial because it was obtained without informing Miranda of his constitutional rights．As a result of this case，police are now required to inform persons accused of a crime of the following Miranda rights before questioning begins：[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]You have the right to remain silent．Anything you say can be used against you in court．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]You have the right to a lawyer and to have one present while you are being questioned．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]If you cannot afford a lawyer，one will be appointed for you before any questioning begins．[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]米兰达权利[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]看美国电影或电视剧时，你们注意到警察或警官将手铐铐住嫌疑犯时，一边念念有词，或把一张小纸片上的话念给他听。他所说的或读的叫做米兰达权利。[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]根据《美利坚合众国宪法第６修正案》，被控犯罪的人有权取得律师的协助。嫌疑犯享有不致因自己的供词、答词而受牵连的权利。这意味嫌疑犯有权保持沉默，不能强迫他提供对自己不利的供词。[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]多年来最高法院认为如果供词不是出于自愿和信得过的，不能接受它为证词。这意味着禁止使用膂力、酷刑、威胁或其他能迫使无辜者认罪的方法。后来，最高法院审理埃斯科比多控告伊利诺州一案时说，如果口供是在剥夺被告与律师谈话的要求之后取得的，即使供词是出于自愿，也不能接受为证词。有的被告可能要求找律师，其他人可能不知道有保持沉默或在质问期间可有律师在场的权利。１９６６年最高法院审理米兰达控告亚利桑那州一案时就曾遇到过这种情况。[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]埃曼斯托•米兰达被控告于亚利桑那州菲尼克斯城附近绑架并强奸一１８岁的姑娘。那姑娘称下班回家路上有个男人抓住她，把她扔在汽车后座上奸污了她。１０天之后米兰达被捕，在一排嫌疑犯中被受害者辨认出。然后警察把他带进审问室，连续审问了两个小时。审问结束后，警官们从审问室出来，手上拿着有米兰达签字的书面供词。开庭时供词用做证词，米兰达被判为有罪。后来米兰达上诉美国最高法院，根据是警方没有宣读他有保持沉默的权利，并剥夺他取得律师协助的权利。米兰达并未表示供词是编造的，或是在压力下被迫认罪，而是说明如果事先告诉他有保持沉默和取得律师协助的权利，他本来是不会认罪的。[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]考虑了种种论证，最高法院裁决米兰达的供词在法庭审判时无效，因为那是在未告知他享有宪法规定的权利的情况下取得的。由于这一案例的结果，警方必须在审问前向被控告犯罪的人宣读以下的米兰达权利：[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]你有权保持沉默。你说的一切可在法庭上用做对你不利的供词；[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]你有权找律师；审问时可有律师在场；[/font][/color]
[color=#444444][font=Tahoma,]你如果没钱请律师，任何审问开始前可为你指定一位律师。[/font][/color][/size]
页:
[1]