Miranda Rights Research Articles

Pelanggaran Prinsip Miranda Rule pada Proses Penyidikan Perkara Pidana di Indonesia (Tinjauan Kasus Pengamen Cipulir Jakarta Selatan 2013)

The criminal justice system in Indonesia is plagued by various types of crimes, including official indifference, abuse of authority by officers, and human rights violations related to people's civil rights. The rights of suspects, which are fundamental human rights and are ingrained in them, are often ignored in the Indonesian criminal justice system, to the detriment of suspects. The case that attracted attention was an incident that occurred in 2013 in Cipulir, South Jakarta, where several buskers were accused of committing the crime of murder. This case surfaced after reports that detained buskers were not given their basic rights during the investigation process, which could be linked to a violation of Miranda Rule principles. This research aims to find out how the Miranda Rule principles guarantee the rights of suspects in the criminal justice system in Indonesia. The method used in this research is a normative method, using the concept of a statutory approach. The purpose of the results of this research is to understand that the Miranda Principle or known as Miranda rights is what happens when someone gives a warning to someone who is in danger. Namely the right to obtain/contact legal advisors/advocates. If unable, then given the opportunity to provide legal advice/advocate. The right to obtain legal assistance has been included in Articles 54, 55 and 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If he is unable to do so, the suspect has the right to be provided with legal advice by the relevant official or through an investigator, as regulated in article 56 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As for Miranda Warning (Right To Remain Silent), it is not regulated explicitly, but its application can be interpreted implicitly in articles 52, 117 and 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Comprehension of Miranda warnings in adults with chronic, moderate-severe traumatic brain injury

IntroductionTo compare comprehension of Miranda rights in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) versus adults without TBI as measured by response accuracy on the Miranda Right Comprehension Instruments. MethodsData were collected virtually via teleconferencing from July 2022 to February 2023. Participants included 25 adults with moderate-severe TBI (12 females, 13 males) and 25 adults without TBI (12 females, 13 males), ages 20-55 years. In this observational study, both groups (with and without TBI) completed the Miranda Right Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), which includes four instruments including Comprehension of Miranda Rights, Comprehension of Miranda Rights-Recognition, Function of Rights in Interrogation, Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary instruments. Response accuracy on the MRCI was compared across groups. ResultsThe TBI group was significantly less accurate when responding to questions on the MRCI compared to the NC group. ConclusionIndividuals with chronic moderate-severe TBI underperform their non-injured peers on the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments, a tool used in legal settings when there is doubt about an individual's understanding of their Miranda rights. TBI is a risk factor for disruptions in comprehension of language in legal contexts that may, in part, contribute to the increased interaction with the criminal justice system and incarceration for individuals with TBI. Implications for policy, advocating, and intervention are discussed.

Ebstein Anomaly in an Adolescent: A ‘Miranda Warning’ against Blaming Sickle Cell Cardiomyopathy: A Case-Based Scholarly Update

Ebstein Anomaly in an Adolescent: A ‘Miranda Warning’ against Blaming Sickle Cell Cardiomyopathy: A Case-Based Scholarly Update

“HABEAS CORPUS” INSTITUTE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AND THE "RULE OF MIRANDA” IS A TRUE GUARANTEE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

This article cites the norms of the Habeas Corpus Institute and the Miranda rules in the Constitution ofthe Republic of Uzbekistan, adopted in a new edition. The new version of the Constitution analyzes the definition of the provisions on the institution of Habeas Corpus and the Miranda rule using the example of the legislation of the United States and Turkey, which are considered advanced developed countries.

H - 64 When the Miranda Warning cannot be Understood: Implications of Utilizing an Unqualified Interpreter.

Crenshaw (1989) identifies intersectionality as the interface between a person's identities in relation to inequalities in social systems. She explicates how individuals receive distinct encounters with privilege and discrimination from society, depending on their unique amalgamation of personal, social, and political identities. An example of this is seen in a monolingual Spanish speaker of Mexican descent who underwent an independent neuropsychological evaluation to determine any cognitive impairment related to his legal charges. The defendant is a 39-year-old male with lifelong cognitive difficulties and one year of formal schooling. At the time of the arrest, he was interrogated with the assistance of an inexperienced, uncertified interpreter. Sight translation of the Miranda warning included 8 made-up words and multiple verb-tense errors, resulting in 15% + of the warning being nonsensical. The interview transcript indicated the defendant experienced frequent comprehension difficulties. The defendant is of extremely low intellectual abilities (FSIQ = 67, 1%ile). Cognitive deficits were observed across various domains including academic skills (reading, writing, math) and verbal comprehension. He is able to manage basic activities of daily living but needs assistance with more complex tasks (e.g., use of debit card, paying bills). The evaluation suggests the defendant likely did not understand the Miranda warning and was swayed to confess during the interrogation. To combat institutional bias, law enforcement should be educated on individuals with lower cognitive capacities and the importance of accurate Spanish translation. Ignoring intersectionality and institutional bias perpetuates inequities in culturally appropriate care but can also contribute to wrongful convictions.

“It's Just Like on TV”: An Analysis of the Mirandizing Process on TV

When Mirandizing a suspect, officers sometimes compare the Mirandizing process to their representation on TV. In doing so, officers assume the suspect (and more generally the American public) is familiar with, and understands, their Miranda warnings due to their dissemination on TV. Thus, this paper investigates how the Mirandizing process is presented on TV. An analysis of arrests and custodial interviews on Law & Order: SVU indicates that fictional suspects are rarely adequately Mirandized; they are either not Mirandized at all or are provided a partial version. Moreover, suspects on TV are found to attempt to explicitly invoke their rights only 11% of the time, of which there is about a 50–50 chance of the attempted invocation being successful. In 23% of the time, legal representation appears without any language from the suspect showing them invoking their rights. Attempted and implied invocations on TV are primarily made by persons guilty of the crime they are being accused of, and innocent suspects primarily waive their rights, reinforcing a popular belief that guilty people invoke their rights and innocent people waive them.

Reconsidering Miranda rights: Modeling strategic action during the invocation stage of a police interrogation

This paper develops a method to identify manipulation of custodial suspects who attempt to invoke the Miranda right to legal counsel during a custodial interrogation. The method, developed from a combination of framing theory and hypergame theory, first documents the point where custodial suspects’ preferences shift and second identifies the proximate cause of that shift using excerpts from legal cases. The method applies linguistic analysis within a hypergame framework to reveal rational behavior of custodial suspects who, despite owning an initial preference to invoke, waive their right to counsel without explicit pressure from police. The paper terms this shift in preferences “manipulation” adding the concept to hypergames and to the literature on noncooperative discursive exchanges.

Evaluating the utility of elicited imitation as a measure of listening comprehension in the context of forensic linguistics

The Miranda rights guard against self-incrimination and guarantee access to legal counsel (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Individuals may waive these rights if they do so knowingly, and this requires them to comprehend their rights. Many L1 English speakers do not adequately understand the Miranda warning, and the situation is even worse for L2 speakers (e.g., Pavlenko, Hepford, Jarvis, 2019). Research is needed to assess Miranda comprehension among vulnerable populations and to develop and validate instruments that are both accurate and efficient measures of Miranda rights comprehension. The Guidelines for Communication of Rights to Non-Native Speakers of English (CoRG, 2015) emphasize the importance of assessing Miranda comprehension by having individuals paraphrase the Miranda sentences. Yet, Pavlenko et al. (2019) found that verbatim sentence repetition produces similar results to paraphrasing. The present study further explores this finding by comparing L2 performance on the oral equivalents of the types of written tasks used by Pavlenko et al.: elicited imitation (EI) and oral paraphrasing (OP). The purpose of the study is to determine whether EI can substitute for OP as a test of listening comprehension. Forty-two L2 English and eight L1 English participants completed both an EI and an OP test consisting of the same 30 sentences (see Ortega et al., 2002). The results showed a high correlation (r >.90) between the two measures, suggesting that both tests measure the same construct. Drawing on these findings, we discuss the advantages of EI over OP as a measure of listening comprehension and Miranda competency.

Adolescents’ Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights: Comparison of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System and in the Community

ABSTRACT Although adolescents’ understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights have been examined with community youth and youth in the legal system, Miranda waiver capacities have not been compared between these populations, a comparison critical to elucidating relationships between rights comprehension, age, and IQ. This study compared Miranda comprehension between 108 juveniles in residential pre- and post-adjudication facilities and 43 students in a high-achieving private school. The juvenile justice sample had significantly lower Miranda comprehension, attributable to differences in verbal IQ. The relationship between age and verbal IQ and Miranda comprehension differed for the two samples, suggesting relationships between these variables may be more complex than previously thought.

“Person of Interest” in Russian Criminal Proceedings

Used in the U.S. law enforcement system, the term “person of Interest” refers to a person who is the subject of a police investigation but who has not been recognized by an investigator as a suspect in a crime. The procedural significance of this category is that such person is analyzed with the use of legal and near-legal means (without explaining to him/her Miranda warnings) for the involvement in a committed or impending crime before a formal decision is made against him/her in order to involve him/her in a particular status in criminal proceedings. This phenomenon, characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon system of law, also takes place in Russian legal reality. In the domestic scientific literature, such person is proposed to be called “suspected”, “potential suspect”, “person of operational interest”, “person being investigated”. Analysis of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation allows us to establish that the figure of the suspect has long been known to the body of constitutional review, and in its practice the Court has repeatedly expressed itself about the possibility of such person involving a lawyer in the operational-search activities. Given that operational-search activities are used to form an evidence base for a significant number of criminal cases, an intensive convergence of criminal proceedings and operational-search activities should be noted. In this regard, it is necessary to introduce legislatively elements and guarantees of legal protection of the person from illegal and unreasonable operational prosecution into the structure of operational-search activities. The category “person of interest” should receive its official name and procedural status in Russian criminal operational and procedural law (which does not yet exist). As a result, the author proposes to complete the Law on the Conduct of Operational-search Activities with definitions of the concepts of “suspected” and “operational prosecution”, as well as entrench the list of rights of the suspected person with his/her participation in operational-search activities, primarily the right to use the services of a lawyer.

“Miranda Rights”: History of Their Establishment and Implementation in the Court Proceedings of the USA and the Russian Federation

The paper analyzes the legal institute of «privilege against self-incrimination» recognized as a fundamental principle of the Anglo-Saxon legal system, which is best manifested in the so-called «Miranda rights» formulated in the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which became revolutionary and customary for criminal court proceedings in the USA. In their most general form, Miranda rights are procedural guarantees applied when a person is detained or taken into custody and interrogated. According to them, the detained or arrested person should, prior to questioning, be warned that they have the right to remain silent, anything they say can be used against them in court; they have the right to have a lawyer with them during questioning, if they cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for them by the state before the questioning starts. «Miranda rights» have gone through a difficult path, and been a subject of criticism by both officials and representatives of the legal community, but have withstood the test of time, taken the place of a constitutional principle in the USA and have been adopted in many countries, including Russia. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation incorporated clauses on the right of the suspect and the accused not to testify against themselves and the opportunity for the defense attorney to participate in the criminal case from the actual moment of the suspect’s detention.

Falling through the cracks: Failing to identify compromised Miranda abilities for defendants with limited cognitive capacities.

Custodial suspects must be informed of their Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966) prior to police questioning. Since this landmark decision, scholars have rigorously studied Miranda comprehension and reasoning among vulnerable groups including those with intellectual disabilities (ID). However, the focus on ID has left arrestees with limited cognitive capacities (i.e., LCCs with IQs between 70 and 85) entirely overlooked. The current dataset addressed this oversight using a large (N=820) sample of pretrial defendants who had completed the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA). Traditional (i.e., ID and no-ID) criterion groups were first analyzed with the standard error of measurement (SEM) removed. Second, a nuanced three-group framework included defendants with LCCs. Results indicate that LCC defendants are vulnerable to impaired Miranda comprehension (i.e., limited recall of the Miranda warning and deficits in Miranda-related vocabulary knowledge). Not surprisingly, their waiver decisions were often impaired by crucial misconceptions (e.g., seeing the investigating officers as beneficently on their side). The practical implications of these findings were underscored with respect to Constitutional safeguards for this critically important group, who have appeared to fall through the cracks in the criminal justice system.

Taking the next step in Miranda evaluations: Considering racial trauma and the impact of prior police contact.

By law, before interrrogating a suspect who is in custody, the police should inform them of their Miranda rights-the rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney. When a suspect or defendant waives their Miranda rights, a judge ultimately determines whether the waiver was legal. In making this determination, the judge employs the totality of the circumstances (TOC) analysis, which includes factors related to the individual defendant as well as the environment in which they waived their rights. Frequently, forensic psychologists evaluate a defendant to offer courts a clinical opinion about the defendant's ability to understand and appreciate their Miranda rights and to provide other TOC information. These evaluations are referred to as Miranda evaluations. Using Miranda evaluations as an illustration, this article describes how the critical, yet often overlooked, concepts of racial trauma and vicarious and direct prior police contacts should routinely be considered as part of forensic evaluations. After providing a succinct overview of the relevant legal issues related to Miranda rights and of the existing guidelines for conducting Miranda evaluations, we discuss the psychological impact of racial trauma and prior vicarious and direct police contacts. We provide case examples to illustrate how evaluators can consider the impact of racial trauma and prior police contact when conducting Miranda evaluations. This article serves as a practical guide for understanding how and why-in the context of their lived experiences-suspects may waive their Miranda rights. Finally, we recommend how to improve policy and research to better capture issues related to racial trauma and prior police contacts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Application of the Principle of Miranda Rule for Legal Aid Assistance in Criminal Cases for Poor People in Indonesia in accordance with Law No. 16 of 2011

The Miranda rule which is a legal rule in which there is a regulation that regulates the rights of the suspect as a citizen and the protection of the constitutional law of a citizen that arises and arises from the Negligence of investigators when conducting an investigation of an Arizona citizen became a turning point in the system. law that regulates the rights and welfare of suspects of criminal acts. Then the rule was ratified into the laws and regulations of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, which focused on providing legal assistance for suspects or defendants of criminal acts. The Miranda rule itself has a lot of impact on its derivative rules in treating someone as a subject within the scope of the law. This of course aims to achieve justice and the benefit of law for all.

Prinsip Miranda Rule Sebagai Hak Asasi Tersangka Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia

Introduction: Often in the law enforcement process there is a form of crime, neglect of obligations, human rights violations related to the civil rights of citizens in the criminal justice system and abuse of power committed by apparat. In our criminal justice system, the rights of suspects who are the basis of human rights attached to them are often overlooked, which is detrimental to suspects.
 Purposes of the Research: This research aims to find out how the Miranda Rule principle guarantees the human rights of suspects in the Indonesian criminal justice system.
 Methods of the Research: The methods used in this research are normative research methods, using a conceptual approach and a statute approach.
 Results Originality of the Research: the results showed that the Miranda Rule/Miranda Principle, in the form of Miranda Rights has provided guarantees for the rights of suspects. Namely, the right to obtain/contact legal counsel/advocate, and if unable to, then the right to be provided with legal counsel/advocates, the right to obtain legal assistance has been absorbed into articles 54, 55, and 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Indonesia, while if he is incapacitated, then the suspect has the right to be provided with legal counsel by the official concerned or through an investigator, as stipulated in article 56 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Indonesia. As for the Miranda Warning (Right To Remain Silent), it is not expressly regulated, but implicitly it can be interpreted as its application in articles 52, 117 and 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Indonesia.

The detrimental impact of alcohol intoxication on facets of Miranda comprehension.

Law enforcement officers often encounter alcohol-intoxicated suspects, suggesting that many suspects are presented with the challenge of grasping the meaning and significance of their Miranda rights while intoxicated. Such comprehension is crucial, given that Miranda is intended to minimize the likelihood of coercive interrogations resulting in self-incrimination and protect suspects' constitutional rights. Yet, the effects of alcohol on individuals' ability to understand and appreciate their Miranda rights remain unknown-a gap that the present study sought to address. Informed by alcohol myopia theory (AMT), we predicted that intoxicated individuals would demonstrate impaired Miranda comprehension compared to sober individuals and those who believed they were intoxicated (but were in fact not; i.e., placebo participants). After health screenings, participants completed the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Second Edition verbal subtests, rendering a Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) score. We randomly assigned participants to consume alcohol (n = 51; mean breath alcohol concentration [BrAC] = 0.07%), a placebo condition (n = 44; BrAC = 0.00%), or a sober control condition (n = 41; BrAC = 0.00%). All participants (N = 136) completed the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), which measured participants' understanding of the Miranda warnings, recognition of the warnings, appreciation of their rights in interrogation and court settings, and understanding of Miranda-related vocabulary. We found a significant effect of intoxication condition on participants' understanding of Miranda warnings (η²p = .14) and Miranda-related vocabulary (η²p = .05) when controlling for VCI scores. Specifically, intoxicated participants received lower scores for understanding of warnings compared to sober and placebo participants, and lower scores for understanding of Miranda vocabulary compared to sober participants. Alcohol did not significantly impact Miranda rights recognition or appreciation. Alcohol intoxication may detrimentally impact some facets of Miranda comprehension. Thus, it is important that law enforcement consider refraining from questioning intoxicated suspects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The Laws of Search, Seizure, and Custodial Interrogation: Searching the Orchard of American Constitution

The United States Criminal Justice System and court structure are two separate court systems, one at the federal level and another at the state level. In criminal proceedings, many courtrooms principally convict either by trial or by guilty plea, and many result in dismissing cases. It is necessary to examine the scope of the crime problems that criminal courts face and the organizational context as well as the policies in which they operate. The Fourth Amendment rights in particular, limits to searches and seizures are important procedures in the ongoing prosecution of crimes in America. The right of the people to remain secure in persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. The police have the power to search and seize, but individuals are protected against unreasonable police intrusion. The Fifth Amendment Miranda rights protect any person from custodial interrogation by the police. It is required that all arrestees be given their Miranda warnings and if they are invoked they must be scrupulously honoured.

Miranda Warning Comprehension: The Influence of Verbal Aptitude and Hearing Status.

The Miranda warning was drafted in order to inform people of their rights upon arrest in an easy to understand manner. However, to understand the warning a person needs a high school level reading comprehension (which is above the level of most offenders). Among these offenders, deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) individuals are particularly prone to misinterpreting the Miranda warning due to language barriers with law enforcement and below average English literacy compared to hearing individuals. Two studies were performed. The first compared Miranda warning comprehension between hearing and DHH participants, and it was found that DHH participants showed overall lower comprehension. The second study, consisting only of DHH participants, compared the effectiveness of four different presentations of the Miranda warning: signed in American Sign Language (ASL), signed in Signed Exact English (SEE), oral presentation, and written presentation. The written presentation demonstrated the lowest comprehension scores while the other three methods showed no significant difference in comprehension. The results suggest that the Miranda warning is best administered to DHH individuals with the assistance of a certified sign language interpreter. Limitations of the sample and directions for future research are discussed.

Miranda v. Arizona and Duties to Police for Criminal Suspects in Criminal Justice under the Constitution of United States of America

The United States Criminal Justice System and court structure are two separate court systems, one at the federal level and another at the state level. In criminal proceedings, many courtrooms principally convict either by trial or by guilty plea, and many result in dismissing cases. It is necessary to examine the scope of the crime problems that criminal courts face and the organizational context as well as the policies in which they operate. The Fourth Amendment rights in particular, limits to searches and seizures are important procedures in the ongoing prosecution of crimes in America. The right of the people to remain secure in persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. The police have the power to search and seize, but individuals are protected against unreasonable police intrusion. The Fifth Amendment Miranda rights protect any person from custodial interrogation by the police. It is required that all arrestees be given their Miranda warnings and if they are invoked they must be scrupulously honoured.

Konsep Miranda Rule dalam Hukum Pidana di Indonesia Perspektif Maqasid al-Shari’ah

This article examines the application of the Miranda rule concept in Criminal Procedure Law in Indonesia which is viewed from the perspective of maqa>s}id ash-syari>'ah. The research method used in this research is normative law which is described in an explorative-qualitative manner. The results of the study explain that the existence of The Miranda Rule concept in the Criminal Procedure Code in Indonesia is not entirely included. It is limited only to Article 52 of the Criminal Code which gives freedom to suspects or defendants in giving information. The right to remain silent is not justified in the Criminal Procedure Code as in Mirnada Right. This is because in some cases there was coercion by the authorities which then led to an inaccurate decision by the court. So maqa>s}id ash-syari>'ah views the concept of the miranda rule of benefit to be applied in criminal law in Indonesia, especially the Criminal Procedure Code as a form of safeguarding human dignity and human rights. Mistakes or harm should be minimized or even eliminated when dealing with human life or human dignity. So the author concludes that it is necessary for lawmakers or in this case the legislature and the government to carry out legal reforms to the existence of the rights of suspects or defendants in procedural law in accordance with the objectives or benefits of a law.