没有时间沉默

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Texas Law Review Pub Date : 2003-03-28 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.385724
S. Klein
{"title":"没有时间沉默","authors":"S. Klein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.385724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, I respond to the position, taken by the Solicitor General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Chavez v. Martinez, 122 S.Ct. 2326 (2002) and by Professor Steven Clymer in 112 Yale L.J. 447 (2003), that the police are free to disgregard Miranda. I suggest that the privilege against self-incrimination is best viewed as a ban on certain official conduct outside of a criminal trial, not as an evidentiary rule. The Supreme Court in Kastigar v. United States, by blessing prosecutorial grants of immunity pursuant to statute, did not intend to extend this same authority to police officers in back rooms. I further argue that a deliberate violation of any right invoked under Miranda should give rise to a viable civil rights claim. Scholarly attacks on Miranda are simply misdirected unhappiness with the privilege itself. Finally, I suggest that the tragic events of September 11, 2001, do not warrant the abandonment of the privilege in ordinary domestic criminal cases.","PeriodicalId":47670,"journal":{"name":"Texas Law Review","volume":"63 1","pages":"1337-1360"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2003-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Time for Silence\",\"authors\":\"S. Klein\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.385724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this essay, I respond to the position, taken by the Solicitor General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Chavez v. Martinez, 122 S.Ct. 2326 (2002) and by Professor Steven Clymer in 112 Yale L.J. 447 (2003), that the police are free to disgregard Miranda. I suggest that the privilege against self-incrimination is best viewed as a ban on certain official conduct outside of a criminal trial, not as an evidentiary rule. The Supreme Court in Kastigar v. United States, by blessing prosecutorial grants of immunity pursuant to statute, did not intend to extend this same authority to police officers in back rooms. I further argue that a deliberate violation of any right invoked under Miranda should give rise to a viable civil rights claim. Scholarly attacks on Miranda are simply misdirected unhappiness with the privilege itself. Finally, I suggest that the tragic events of September 11, 2001, do not warrant the abandonment of the privilege in ordinary domestic criminal cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Texas Law Review\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"1337-1360\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Texas Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.385724\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.385724","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在这篇文章中,我回应了美国司法部副部长在查韦斯诉马丁内斯案(122 s.c.)中所持的立场。2326(2002)和Steven Clymer教授在112 Yale L.J. 447(2003)中指出,警察可以自由地无视米兰达。我认为,不自证其罪的特权最好被视为禁止刑事审判之外的某些官方行为,而不是作为证据规则。在卡斯提加尔诉美国案中,最高法院虽然根据规约准许检察官享有豁免权,但并不打算将同样的权力扩大到密室里的警察。我进一步认为,蓄意侵犯《米兰达》规定的任何权利,都应提出切实可行的公民权利主张。对米兰达的学术攻击只不过是误导了对特权本身的不满。最后,我认为,2001年9月11日的悲惨事件不能成为在普通国内刑事案件中放弃特权的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
No Time for Silence
In this essay, I respond to the position, taken by the Solicitor General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Chavez v. Martinez, 122 S.Ct. 2326 (2002) and by Professor Steven Clymer in 112 Yale L.J. 447 (2003), that the police are free to disgregard Miranda. I suggest that the privilege against self-incrimination is best viewed as a ban on certain official conduct outside of a criminal trial, not as an evidentiary rule. The Supreme Court in Kastigar v. United States, by blessing prosecutorial grants of immunity pursuant to statute, did not intend to extend this same authority to police officers in back rooms. I further argue that a deliberate violation of any right invoked under Miranda should give rise to a viable civil rights claim. Scholarly attacks on Miranda are simply misdirected unhappiness with the privilege itself. Finally, I suggest that the tragic events of September 11, 2001, do not warrant the abandonment of the privilege in ordinary domestic criminal cases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Texas Law Review is a national and international leader in legal scholarship. Texas Law Review is an independent journal, edited and published entirely by students at the University of Texas School of Law. Our seven issues per year contain articles by professors, judges, and practitioners; reviews of important recent books from recognized experts, essays, commentaries; and student written notes. Texas Law Review is currently the ninth most cited legal periodical in federal and state cases in the United States and the thirteenth most cited by legal journals.
期刊最新文献
Guarantor of Last Resort Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions Feminism and the Tournament Tracing Equity: Realizing and Allocating Value in Chapter 11 State Public-Law Litigation in an Age of Polarization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1