At one point in the movie Parasite, someone is being questioned by a detective. The movie, which takes place in South Korea, is in Korean and is subtitled in English, which may help answer my question. At one point, the detective informs the subject that he has the right to remain silent. Then, he says to his partner, something like, “I’m just giving him his Miranda rights.” Now, maybe this is a liberty taken by the translation team, but it makes me wonder if the South Korean people have adopted this general style of informing criminal aprehendees from our own legal system. Have they? Is there such a thing comparable to Miranda rights there? I understand that the term refers to a court case here, so I don’t expect to see that they have Miranda rights, per se. But does their system have a parallel to it?
This Wikipedia article address the “right to silence” in a couple of dozen countries, but unfortunately doesn’t mention South Korea.
According to the Government of Canada, yes, people arrested in South Korea have the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney.
Most interesting. Thank you.
This didn’t originate with Miranda. That was just for all the US.
But I remember reading a Scotland Yard Inspector saying a limited version as he arrested a criminal exposed by Sherlock Holmes. No fuss, just seemed to be the common formula for an arrest. This was set in the late 1800s.
As I (only barely and vaguely) understand it, Miranda didn’t establish any right to remain silent, which was already well established. What Miranda established was the rule that arrestees must be advised of that right on-the-spot.
Is this correct?
Up until February 2019, Korean law gave citizens the right to remain silent, but the law did not require police to inform suspects of this prior to questioning. So, obviously the police used the suspects’ ignorance to their advantage when. Pressure from the international Human Rights Commission led to the recent change in February. They did give something similar prior to the change, that was basically just “You’re being arrested for such and such crime, you can call a lawyer, you have the right to tell us your defense/alibi, and if you feel this arrest is not lawful, you can raise that issue to the judge”.
Now they say all that with the addition of, “you are not required to speak or answer questions”.
Interestingly, the Korean word for this is 미란다 원칙, which transliterated is “Miranda Wonchik” and means “Miranda Principles”.
What’s interesting, is that Korean movies and Soap Operas have just used the American version of Miranda due to its prevalence in Hollywood movies and all our procedural dramas. It’s kind of what people expect to hear in those scenes even though everyone knows its inaccurate, like engine noise in space.
Not “on the spot”, just at some point prior to asking questions which lead to statements they’ll want to use as evidence. Police can arrest a person and ask all the questions they want without ever giving a Miranda warning and there is no issue. But, then, none of those statements or further evidence obtained from those statements will be admissable in court. Despite the misconceptions, Miranda isn’t necessary to make an arrest legal. In fact, a criminal could be arrested, tried and sentenced without ever being Mirandized.
But if a suspect is in custody and the police want to get some potentialy incriminating information they will have to read the Miranda warning to use the statements or information against him/her at trial.
The right to remain silent comes from the 5th amendment and is never not in effect even if the criteria for Miranda does not exist.
You are in the ballpark. For Miranda to be in effect there must be an interrogation and it must be while they are in custody. Questions asked while not in custody do not require Miranda. Statements made while in custody but not during interrogation (like spontaneous utterances) do not require Miranda. Miranda certainly doesn’t need to be read at arrest.
Some states may have a stricter interpretation.
Nitpick: “[in] custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” In other words, Miranda applies when a suspect is not free to leave (and is questioned by law enforcement). That could be in the back of a squad car, or even in one’s own home.
Yes that’s what in custody means and why I didn’t say under arrest. There has been a lot of case law pertaining to the parameters of what custody is.