| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miranda warning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 13, 2008 and June 13, 2010. |
|
| |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Changed a mention of "Sixth Amendment right to counsel" to "the right to counsel"; Miranda is sounded entirely the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, including the right to have counsel present; the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, on the other hand, essentially applies only to in-court proceedings — Preceding unsigned comment added by UberMitch (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article should likely note this is becoming a political issue again, as some feel it interferes with law enforcement (mainly conservatives). There is speculation that any future Supreme court justice will be asked t heir opinion on the issue during confirmation hearings. See CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/interactive/confirmation.explainer/content.4.html among many others.
The paragraph:
The caution is a restriction on drawing adverse inferences applies, for example where the suspect has been denied legal advice, is You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence
makes no sense to me. Am I just misreading it or does it need rewriting?
Another nonsensical sentence:
Under the heading "TYPICAL MIRANDA WARNING":
"This warning, however, should not be confused with the family that currently resides in Ohio."
Is this sentence vandalism?
The law Perben II have reverted the right of having an attorney at the first hour of custody. Now it is possible at the 20th hour of police custody, as previously. For the right to have a translator, i think Perben II law has changed this, but i am nost sure. Previously, the fact that a translator was missing was a reason for claiming mistrial. I agree with the fact that police says "you are under arrest for ..., the custody will last 24 hours, one time renewable for a 24 hours term, you have the right to call a relative, a physican, etc...", but not with the right to remain silent. However my experience on this last subject is limited to embbeded reportages seen on TV and speaches with police men. I think a specialist of french penal procedure should check the part about "miranda" in France.
An edit ((cur | prev) 11:11, 14 August 2016 68.172.235.159 (talk) . . (123,151 bytes) (+158) . . (Where the article evidently applies only to males, clarified that point in the writing.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)) changed parts of the article to insert male only language which on the surface of it makes no sense. I'm reluctant to unilaterally undo it since I don't understand *why* this may have been done. males and females they don't have the same rights which is so unfair but whatever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.34.48 (talk)
