you have the right to have a lawyer present at your trial. If you can't afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one for you. "Hunter officer this line is really puzzling, the criminal suspect should have the right to remain silent, refused to police interrogation, the suspect is not white? In real life, if Officer Hunter didn't bother the suspect with this line, or only said the first two sentences, he was too tired to mention the last two sentences, then the suspect might have been arrested for nothing. The fifth amendment to the US Constitution stipulates that no one shall be forced to testify against himself in any criminal case. According to this constitutional provision, no matter in the police station, the court or the congressional hearing, anyone has the right to remain silent and refuse to provide evidence that may be used against him. Some people will ask, is there a mistake? If you have the right to remain silent, why did Monica Lewinsky and Clinton confess? The thing is, according to American law, sometimes the government or Congress can guarantee that a person will not be charged with his confession in exchange for his own testimony or that of others. In Clinton's "zipper door" case, in order to get Lewinsky's true confession to sue Clinton, the special prosecutor gave her this immunity. In the face of Lewinsky's confession and the stain on his skirt, Clinton had to resort to the tricks of digging into the dead end and playing with legal terms, and found out that he had only an "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky to avoid the serious legal consequences of perjury to the federal grand jury. However, if the confession of a criminal suspect is purely forced to testify against himself, then this confession cannot be cited as criminal evidence in court. In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States made a far-reaching ruling on Miranda v. Arizona, which has become one of the most important criminal rulings in the United States in this century. In 1963, a 23-year-old unemployed young man named Ennas Miranda was arrested in Arizona on suspicion of raping and kidnapping women, and police officers immediately questioned him. Before the trial, the police officer did not tell Miranda that she had the right to remain silent and not admit her guilt. Miranda's culture is not high, and I have never heard of such a thing as the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution in my life. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda admitted the crime and signed the confession. Later, in court, the prosecutor showed Miranda's confession to the jury as important evidence to accuse him of committing a crime. Miranda's lawyer insisted that Miranda's confession was invalid according to the Constitution. Finally, the jury found Miranda guilty and the judge sentenced Miranda to 2 years in prison. The case was later appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court finally overturned the judgment of the district court on the grounds that the police officer did not inform Miranda of her constitutional rights in advance before the trial. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated to the police the rules for interrogating suspects: First, inform the suspects in advance of their right to remain silent. Second, tell the suspects in advance that their confessions may be used to prosecute and try them. Third, the suspect has the right to ask a lawyer to be present at the trial. Fourth, if the suspect can't afford a lawyer, the court will appoint a lawyer for him free of charge. These rules later became known as the Miranda rule. The first three articles of the Miranda rule are related to the Miranda case, while the fourth rule, that is, if the suspect can't afford a defense lawyer, the court should appoint a lawyer for him free of charge, is based on another important ruling made by the US Supreme Court in 1963. The sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the defendant has the right to ask a lawyer to defend him when he is tried in court. As everyone knows, money is not everything; You can ask a lawyer to defend you. You can't do anything without money. For more than a hundred years, this constitutional amendment has actually only protected the human rights of the rich. Until 1932, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Powell v. Powellv. Alabama that the court should provide free defense lawyers for poor defendants accused of capital crimes. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainewright that both federal courts and state courts should provide free defense lawyers for poor defendants accused of felony. In 1961, a middle-aged poor man named Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in Florida on suspicion of breaking into a billiard room and was accused of stealing some coins and canned drinks from vending machines. Gideon was so poor that he couldn't afford a lawyer. Although he insisted that he was innocent, he was sentenced to five years in prison. While serving his sentence in prison, Gideon made use of the prison library to study law by himself, and wrote a "petition for the destitute" to the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that he was deprived of the constitutional right to ask a lawyer to defend himself because of poverty. This guy used a lot of newly learned legal terms in his complaint, which was well-founded and well-articulated, and the nine justices of the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with his complaint. In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that "in criminal courts, lawyers are a necessity, not a luxury". Gideon was released from prison and tried again. This time, the court appointed a free defense lawyer, and the final verdict was acquittal. As soon as this case came out, there were thousands of prisoners in prisons all over the United States. Because there was no lawyer to defend them when they were tried that year, most of them were released later. Speaking of prisoners in prison, there is also a true story here, and the real name of the party will be hidden. A mainland scholar studying in the United States became an American citizen a few years ago. The man was defeated in a lawsuit and was sentenced to a fine of $1,5 or five days in prison by the court, either of which. This man is the kind of risk-averse who spends a lot of money, and he heard that prisoners in American prisons are treated like uncles, so he chose to spend five days in prison. Five days later, after being released from prison, several friends came to visit. When we met, I saw this guy's haggard face and sallow face, and everyone was frightened to disgrace. He asked urgently if he had been abused in prison. Don't dare to say, let's go to the court and tell ya. This guy replied that the treatment in prison is not as good as expected, but it is ok. You can read books, watch TV, have a gym and even have a table tennis table. The headache is that all three meals are western food, such as raw fried steak, smoked fish with cheese, salami, ham sandwich, pizza, etc. I accidentally thought it was put into Maxim's restaurant in Beijing. Eating western food every meal is really miserable. On the first day, I was worried, the next day I was uncomfortable, the third day the thief was uncomfortable, the fourth day was particularly painful, and on the fifth day, my buddy simply went on a hunger strike. The cellmate asked, why don't you eat or drink? After learning the reason, the prisoner said with a bad smile, you are really a dummy. Before you, there was an Asian here, and that boy couldn't get used to western food, so he went on a hunger strike at the first meal. Later, the prison authorities ordered him meals from China restaurant every day, such as kung pao chicken and shredded pork with fish flavor, but every meal was not the same. The cellmate finally scolded, "Fuck, it's fucking delicious"! After listening to this, my friends almost laughed. While laughing, people can't help but sigh that American prisons and legal systems are just like children's play. American law gives people the impression that the human rights of criminals seem to be more important than those of victims; Protecting the bad guys seems to have priority over protecting the good guys; It seems that there are more rules and regulations against the police than laws and regulations against criminals. Those defense lawyers who confuse right and wrong are good at drilling loopholes in the law; Coupled with the highly controversial jury system, the American judicial system has often become the laughing stock of the world. Since the 196s, with the increasingly serious problem of violent crimes in the United States, the vast majority of Americans hope that the government will take extreme measure to crack down on violent crimes. But the Supreme Court of the United States seems to turn a blind eye, turn a deaf ear, and even do the opposite. Is there something wrong with all the justices in the Supreme Court? You're right. There are some liberal justices in the Supreme Court of the United States who do have problems, and the root causes are far-reaching. In the depths of American history and culture, there is deep distrust of the government and extreme fear of abuse of power by judges and police officers. People familiar with history know that the ancestors of Americans were persecuted by feudal autocracy in the European continent. After leaving home and coming to the New World, they could no longer tolerate the tyrannical government riding roughshod over the heads of the people and started fighting with the British king's army. The world of the United States was created by the founding President George Washington. But the long-term stability of the United States was thought out by Thomas Jefferson, the third president, and james madison, the fourth president. Thomas Jefferson presided over the drafting of the far-reaching Declaration of Independence, and james madison was known as the "father of the American Constitution". What is a constitution? To explain it in a vulgar way, the constitution is the law governing the government. Why should we manage the government? Because officials and police in the government have the right. While power corrupts people, absolute power corrupts people absolutely. To put it bluntly, because of the power in hand, the officials and police in the government may all be potential bad guys and corrupt elements, and they are potential "organized criminal groups". Therefore, the law should be in charge of the officials and police in the government first, and then the criminals in society. The so-called strengthening the rule of law, first of all, is to restrain the power and behavior of the officials and police in the government from the system. Human history has proved that the ability of government and police to do bad things is definitely much greater than that of criminals in society. Nazi Germany slaughtered 6 million Jews without any effort; In China, from the anti-rightist expansion in 1957 to the ten years' turmoil of Wen Ge, the number of people caught in a mountain of injustice, falsehood, misjudged cases and political persecution reached as many as 1 million, and social progress and economic development suffered unprecedented and terrible damage. Back then, in order to solve the problem from the system, the American Constitution passed in 1787 stipulated many basic principles that bound the government, such as natural human rights, people's sovereignty, limited government, separation and checks and balances of the three powers, rule of law rather than man, civilian control of the army, representative system, federalism and so on. However, from the operational point of view, many of these principles are empty. For example, without freedom of speech, freedom of the press and news supervision, it is still difficult to prevent corruption such as protecting officials and abusing power for personal gain. A government endowed with human rights and limited power can talk nonsense and spit, but if careerists and corrupt officials in the ruling party abuse their power and collude with the police, prosecutors and judges in secret, they make up a bunch of charges, and put the heads of the opposition party and the grass-roots people who accuse the government into black jails, extort confessions by torture, hold secret trials and brutally persecute them, you are at a loss. In a word, without the protection of civil liberties and rights, the high-profile and good words in the Constitution are all nonsense. Of course, the founding fathers of the United States were clear-eyed about the defects in the Constitution at that time. In 1791, the Founding Fathers added ten amendments to the American Constitution in one breath, guaranteeing citizens' freedom of speech, publication, assembly, petition and religion, allowing ordinary people to possess weapons, stipulating that no one should be forced to testify against himself, be tried twice for the same crime, be deprived of anyone's life, freedom or property without due process of law, and the defendant should enjoy the right to a prompt, open and fair trial and be defended by a lawyer. The first ten amendments to the American Constitution are collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights. The core of the Bill of Rights is to check and balance power with power, to restrict power with power, and to gradually establish the right of news supervision and civil rights by protecting citizens' freedom of speech and publication and protecting citizens from the abuse of government and judicial corruption, to check and restrain the government's official power, and to form the separation and mutual checks and balances of the five powers of legislation, law enforcement, justice, news supervision and civil rights. This well-designed power balance structure has effectively curbed the abuse of power by the government. Of course, the American Constitution only protected the human rights of whites and rich people at that time. But no matter what, after all, it makes some people democratic first, and makes American society gradually embark on the road of modern democracy. What is modern democracy? Modern democracy means limiting government power and protecting citizens' human rights. Without a limited government and the protection of human rights, democratic elections are nothing but a name. Nazi Germany was a political power established by referendum and democratic election, but its government was a fascist government with autocracy, unlimited power, bullying the weak and arbitrarily trampling on citizens' human rights. This democracy was a false democracy under the cover of ballot boxes, or a tyranny with elections. In today's China, if we want to build the rule of law firmly, instead of being keen on township direct elections and county direct elections, it is better to limit and supervise the power of township and county governments to act recklessly and protect the legitimate rights of poor people in rural towns. In fact, the township and county governments illegally deprive farmers of their property rights by giving them IOUs. In the economic reform of the city, due to the lack of political reform, the reform measures of the central government's decentralization and profit-making, in fact, have left almost unrestricted and supervised power to local governors, corrupt officials and business owners. Once absolute power is in hand, it is difficult to avoid corruption. As the biggest victims and the most determined opponents of corruption, the grass-roots people are basically in a position of being trampled upon by others and having nowhere to redress grievances. To tell the truth, the people of China, as a whole, have no right to exist. Protecting citizens' human rights, supervising and restricting the government's official power, preventing the powerful minority from abusing their power and taking bribes and perverting the law, and curbing the rising tide of unemployment and crime, the disparity between the rich and the poor, judicial corruption and other phenomena have become the biggest challenges facing China society. In western countries, like the United States, not only the rights of citizens, but also the rights of defendants are written into the constitution, while the president, congress and government officials stand in the dock all day long, being criticized and criticized by the news media and the public. I am afraid this is the only one. In today's American society, the official power is weak, the civil rights are strong, and the news media is super strong. The power of government officials is very limited, the freedom and rights of the grass-roots people are many, the news media meddle in everything, and the power of the police is strictly limited by law. It is no accident that the power of the police is strictly restricted. The law enforcement and judicial system in the United States involves police, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, witnesses, juries, etc. Among them, the police are considered to be the worst quality, the most difficult to supervise, and the most prone to law enforcement and lawbreaking. In any country, the police are always inextricably linked with corrupt officials and underworld, and the police and robbers have always been one family. Any large-scale smuggling and drug trafficking, money laundering, bribery, graft and robbery, never without the high-level background of the police. Darkness and crime within the police are usually much more serious than crimes in society, and the damage to social order and judicial justice is also much greater. In addition, there are more than 2 million guns in the United States, which makes the work of the police full of danger. The police have been dealing with criminals all the year round, and it is difficult for them to change their emotional and irrational behaviors, such as dealing with violence with violence, repaying evil with evil, abusing force and ignoring due process of law. Therefore, despite the strict laws and regulations, American police still violate the law and discipline and abuse their power from time to time. However, the judicial system should be rational and authoritative. In order to maintain the authority and justice of the law and prevent the police from abusing their power, the American judicial system pays attention to the strict administration of politics and the strict administration of police.