Spregovori, če želiš molčati: privilegij in Miranda

diplomsko delo

Anna Južnič (Author), Jurij Toplak (Mentor)

Abstract

Privilegij zoper samoobtožbo je danes ena izmed temeljnih (ustavnih) človekovih pravic, pa vendarle je njegova zgodovina še vedno zavita v tančico skrivnosti, ki jo poskušam odkriti v uvodnem delu diplomskega dela. V nadaljevanju predstavim pravno ureditev in sodno prakso privilegija v Združenih državah Amerike, pri čemer se osredotočam na Peti in Štirinajsti amandma, pot do Mirande in slavno odločitev iz leta 1966, ki je bila v naslednjih letih ostro kritizirana. Vendar so se organi pregona prilagodili precej hitro, pri tem pa jim je pomagalo tudi Vrhovno sodišče ZDA s svojimi odločitvami, s katerimi je izničilo namene Miranda Sodišča in drastično zožilo Mirando. In ko je ravno kazalo, da bo pokopana, je Dickerson odločil, da še ni čas za slovo: Miranda je ustavno pravilo, globoko ukoreninjeno v ameriško kulturo. Nekaj let kasneje je bil Dickerson pozabljen in je Chavez odprl vrata nasilnim zasliševalskim tehnikam, ko je Sodišče odločilo, da izsiljevanje izjav od osumljenca ne krši privilegija iz Petega amandmaja, razen če se take izjave uporabijo zoper obdolženca na sodišču. Sodišču je s svojimi odločitvami uspelo spodkopati okvir privilegija in Mirande, tako da mora osumljenec spregovoriti, če želi molčati. Molk ni več svet in je lahko ter tudi dejansko je uporabljen zoper obdolženca. V Sloveniji je situacija precej drugačna, čeprav si je naš zakonodajalec za izhodišče zakonske ureditve privilegija zoper samoobtožbo postavil znamenito Mirando. V drugem delu obravnavam položaj osumljenca v policijskem postopku, s poudarkom na dokazni vrednosti izjav, ki jih poda osumljenec. Večina osumljencev se odpove svojim pravicam in jih lahko policija neformalno zaslišuje. Kdo bi mogoče pomislil, da se jim v policijskem okolju slabo godi, vendar jih pred sodiščem čaka hujše zlo. Sodnik, ki bo nanje izvrševal pritiske, da naj se pogajajo s tožilcem in priznajo krivdo, kar je nezakonita, a še vedno tolerirana praksa.

Keywords

diplomska dela;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2016
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[A. Južnič]
UDC:	342.722(043.2)
COBISS:	5312043
Views:	1374
Downloads:	258
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP TO REMAIN SILENT: THE PRIVILEGE AND MIRANDA
Secondary abstract:	Today, the privilege against self-incrimination is one of the fundamental (constitutional) human rights, and yet, its history is still shrouded in mystery, which I attempt to unveil in the introductory part of the thesis. In continuation I present the legal regulation and judicial practice of the privilege in the United States of America, where I focus on the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, the road that lead to Miranda and the famous Supreme Court’s decision of 1966, which was widely criticized in the following years. But the law enforcement adapted quite rapidly and the Court helped them with its decisions, which nullified the intention of the Miranda Court and narrowed Miranda drastically. And as it just seemed that the burial awaits, Dickerson decided that it was not time to go: Miranda was a constitutional rule, deeply rooted in American culture. A few years later, however, Dickerson was forgotten and Chavez opened the door to interrogational physical abuse, when the Court decided that coercing statements from a suspect is not in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege as long as those statements are not introduced at the defendant’s trial. The Court managed to undermine the scope of the privilege and Miranda with its decisions, so that now a suspect must speak up, if he wishes to remain silent. Silence is not sacred anymore and can and will be used against a defendant. In Slovenia, on the other hand, the situation is quite different, even though our legislature based the legitimate regulation of the privilege against self-incrimination on the famous Miranda decision. In the second part I address a suspect’s position during the investigatory stage of criminal procedure with an emphasis upon the evidentiary admissibility of statements made by the suspect. Most of the suspects waive their rights and police can then interrogate them. One would think that they had a tough time with the police, but wait before they get in front of a judge. He will pressure them to plea bargaining with the prosecutor and to plead guilty, which is an illegal practice, but so far still tolerated.
Secondary keywords:	privilege against self-incrimination;right to remain silent;police interrogation;confession;Miranda;right to counsel;criminal procedure;plea bargaining;USA;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS):	Undergraduate thesis
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	VI, 75 str.
ID:	9166613