PROFILPELAJAR.COM

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Law Enforcement Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-UberMitch-20230728001100","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Sixth_Amendment-20230728001100","replies":["c-UberMitch-20230728001100-Sixth_Amendment"],"text":"Sixth Amendment","linkableTitle":"Sixth Amendment"}-->

Sixth Amendment

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-UberMitch-20230728001100","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Sixth_Amendment-20230728001100","replies":["c-UberMitch-20230728001100-Sixth_Amendment"]}}-->

__DTLATESTCOMMENTTHREAD__{"id":"c-UberMitch-20230728001100-Sixth_Amendment","timestamp":"20230728001100"}__-->__DTCOMMENTCOUNT__1__-->__DTAUTHORCOUNT__1__-->

__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-UberMitch-20230728001100","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Sixth_Amendment-20230728001100","replies":["c-UberMitch-20230728001100-Sixth_Amendment"],"text":"Sixth Amendment","linkableTitle":"Sixth Amendment"}-->

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]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20230728001100","author":"UberMitch","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-UberMitch-20230728001100-Sixth_Amendment","replies":[]}}-->

Political Issue

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Political_Issue","replies":[]}}-->

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.

Nonsensical sentence

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Nonsensical_sentence","replies":[]}}-->

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?

Right of arestee in France

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Right_of_arestee_in_France","replies":[]}}-->

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.

Source

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Source","replies":[]}}-->

HOLLAND, JESSE J. (2 August 2010). "High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit". Associated Press. The Associated Press. Retrieved 2 August 2010.

Different for males an females?

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Different_for_males_an_females?","replies":[]}}-->

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)