I believe you have heard this famous saying? Miranda warning-"You have the right to remain silent" "Miranda warning" originated from Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is a young man. 1963, arrested by the police in phoenix, Arizona on suspicion of kidnapping and raping a girl with mental retardation of 18 years old. After being interrogated at the police station for two hours, he signed the confession. But afterwards, he said that he didn't know his fifth amendment right, his right to remain silent, his right to get help from a lawyer, and the police didn't tell him. His lawyer protested in court that according to the constitution, Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence to confess the crime. Although the constitutional amendment has existed for nearly 200 years, until the early 1960s, American justice has always followed the principles handed down from history. As long as the suspect "voluntarily" makes a confession, it can be submitted to the court as evidence. It does not emphasize that the police must inform the suspect of his rights. "Willingness" rather than coercion was the only criterion at that time. Therefore, Miranda's confession was used as the main evidence of conviction in court. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He appealed all the way to the Federal Supreme Court on the grounds of "not being informed" and was reviewed by the Supreme Court together with three other similar cases. This review process is essentially an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. 1966, the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Warren made a ruling, pointing out that citizens have the right to know their Fifth Amendment rights before being interrogated, and the police have the obligation to inform the suspects and inform them of their rights before being interrogated. Therefore, Miranda's case was declared invalid and sent back for retrial. This is the origin of Miranda's warning. From then on, all the police in the United States must tell the suspect "Miranda warning" before interrogating the suspect, no matter how busy, hurried, unhappy and nervous the police were at that time. The Supreme Court's ruling on Miranda aroused strong opposition from American conservatives. Some people say that this shows that the justice in the United States is neglected and misplaced, which makes the efficiency of justice reach the lowest point. Radical conservatives even called for the impeachment of Justice Warren. On the side of the civil rights movement, this ruling is regarded as a judicial system to protect citizens from the abuse of power by the government and is the highest point of civil rights protection. Only two years after the Miranda case was decided, the U.S. Congress passed Article 350 1 of the Federal Criminal Law, stipulating that the confession of a suspect can be used as evidence in court as long as it is "voluntary". In essence, this is for Congress to retain the people's public opinion and find ways to lift the restrictions of Miranda warning on police law enforcement. This is the difference between the legislature and the Supreme Court, which has the power of legal interpretation. This conflict between legislation and judicature is very American. More interestingly, apart from legislation and justice, there is also an independent law enforcement department. In the past 30 years, the Federal Ministry of Justice, which is in charge of law enforcement, has never invoked Article 350 1 of the Criminal Law, but only asked the national police to obey the Miranda warning. This attitude towards political crisis is also very American wisdom. The complete Miranda warning includes four points: first, you have the right to remain silent; Second, anything you say may be used as evidence against you in court; Third, if you intend to give up your right to silence, you have the right to have a lawyer to help you when questioned; Fourth, if you can't afford a lawyer, the government can send one for you. However, it is not a simple matter to let all the police in the country accurately issue the "Miranda warning" when necessary, not to mention how many investigations and cases will be delayed at this juncture. What's more, if any policeman is negligent, the confession he got from the suspect will not count and the court will not accept it. Sometimes a negligence can really watch criminals escape the punishment of the law. Sometimes the suspect who is questioned can't speak English well, so many police departments will print the "Miranda warning" in different languages into credit cards, and then choose a card for the suspect to read, so as to ensure the communication of the "Miranda warning".