2006, vol. 11, br. 3, str. 17-37
|
|
Slučaj Miranda i njegove reperkusije na kaznenu reakciju danas
The Miranda case and its consequences for penal reaction today
Institut za uporedno pravo, Beograd
Ključne reči: Miranda; hapšenje; ljudska prava; pravo na odbranu ćutanjem; stav američkog Vrhovnog suda; novi srpski Ustav
Sažetak
U ovom tekstu autor nam govori o slučaju Miranda koji se dogodio šezdesetih godina XX veka u Arizoni u SAD, a kasnije je taj slučaj dospeo pred američki Vrhovni sud. Autor nas, dakle, upoznaje sa istorijatom, faktografijom ovog slučaja, o kojem se dosta zna, između ostalog zato što je nakon toga, Vrhovni sud izrekao obavezu policajcima da svakoga prilikom hapšenja upozore na njegovo pravo da se brani ćutanjem i da zahteva stručnu pomoć advokata, pa je to postalo i deo tzv. Petog amandmana SAD. "Miranda" pravilo je tako prešlo granice SAD, a danas je ono postalo i deo našeg novog Ustava, te su i iskustva u primeni ovog pravila, kao i sva iskustva u vezi celokupnog slučaja Ernesta Mirande, za nas posebno interesantna. Autor upozorava i na mnoge izazove i probleme koji se sa tim novim pravnim pravilom kod nas mogu pojaviti.
Abstract
In 1963, in Phoenix, Arizona, one 18- year-old girl was kidnapped and raped The attacker drove her in the desert with his truck and raped her there. Several days later, the girl saw that truck in town, wrote down the number plates and reported the whole case to the police. Police arrested the owner of the truck, Ernesto Miranda, born in 1941., already known to the police. Miranda was then taken to the station for lining, but the victim couldn’t recognize him for sure. Two detectives who took Miranda into custody, and didn't previously worn him about his rights to have an attorney or to defend himself by remaining silent, told Miranda that the victim has recognized him and that he didn't have any objective chance to escape responsibility. Faced with that, Miranda confessed to the crime and signed the confession. The case came to the court. After first degree trial, Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to 40 to 60 years in prison. After that, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a respectable nongovernmental organization, appealed to the Supreme Court. Chief in Justice, Earl Warren, delivered the opinion of the Court and ruled that the police, before any questioning of a suspect is done, have to warn the person that he has the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, and that anything that person says without the presence of an attorney may be used against him in the court of law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Miranda’s statements made to the detectives could not be used as evidence, since he had not been advised of his rights. So, despite of his confession, Miranda was released on parole, and soon after he was killed in one bar in Arizona in 1976. "Miranda rule" is a new, relatively important principle in new Constitution of the Republic of Serbia from 2006, therefore the author dedicates this paper to this subject. However, the author raises the question about its practical repercussions. So far the suspect could lie and give a false confession, and later deny it on the main trial. The thing is different now. Everything he says to the police, in presence of his attorney, will be used against him in the court of law. Because of that, the author believes it's important to work on education of the police and attorneys.
|