Monday, June 02, 2008 Nalzaro: Respect for human rights By Bobby Nalzaro Saksi
JUST recently, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) conducted a series of seminars for PNP officers in the Visayas region to remind our policemen on the protection of human rights. I think this is a good move because some of our law enforcers have gone overboard in implementing our laws and going after criminals. I would like to share this piece of information to ordinary citizens as well as to law enforcers on the basic principle on respect for human rights, especially in the investigation stage.
Before a law enforcement officer may question you regarding the possible commission of a crime, he or she must read you the “Miranda Rights.” The law enforcer must also make sure that you understand them.
Take note of the following Warning Rights: You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions; Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law; You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during the questioning now or in the future; and If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish; If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
In the event that a law enforcement officer reads you your rights, you immediately inform him or her that you do not wish to speak to them or make a statement without an attorney present. By law, at that request, they are not allowed to question you any further. (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).)
I think only a few citizens know about the Miranda Doctrine. Here’s a little background: In 1963, Ernesto Miranda of Phoenix, Arizona was arrested for kidnapping and raping a Jane Doe (name of the victim withheld) at a bus stop. He made a confession without having been told of his constitutional rights to remain silent and his right to have an attorney present during police questioning.
At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted. The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and that he did not understand his right not to incriminate himself or his right to counsel. On this basis, they overturned his conviction. Miranda was later convicted in a new trial with witnesses testifying against him and other evidence presented.
He was then sentenced to 11 years. He served one third of his sentence and was turned down for parole four times before being finally paroled in December 1972. When Miranda was later killed in a knife fight, his killer received the Miranda warnings, invoking his rights and declined to give a statement.
At the time of his death, Miranda had several business card-size copies of the Miranda statement in his pocket. The SC did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, the court did create a set of guidelines which must be followed.
Well, I hope with this little information our readers now know their rights and law enforcers should strictly adhere to the basic principle of protecting and respecting human rights.
