Millions of custodial suspects waive their rights each year without the benefit of legal counsel. The question posed to psychologists in disputed Miranda waivers is whether this waiver decision was, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Mental health professionals must be aware of potential barriers to Miranda comprehension to provide expert opinions regarding a defendant's competency to waive rights. The current study examined how Miranda warning reading level, length, and method of administration affects Miranda comprehension. Recently arrested detainees at Grayson County Jail were administered oral and written Miranda warnings from the Miranda Statements Scale (MSS; Rogers, 2005) to measure their comprehension of the warnings. Surprisingly low levels of Miranda comprehension were found for most warnings. For all warnings at or above 8th grade, a substantial minority (27.1% - 39.6%) of defendants exhibited failed (i.e., < 50% understanding) Miranda comprehension. Regardless of other variables, oral administrations resulted in a substantially larger number of defendants with failed Miranda comprehension. Implications for public policy and clinical practice are discussed.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:26:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcia Caceres Dias Yokoyama.pdf: 787524 bytes, checksum: e05abda79ee5e37b0856957f755a777d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-11-07 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The modern Criminal Lawsuit has the remarkable characteristic of looking at the imputed person as someone who has rights, to privilege the biggest principle of the human being, conquered gradually. To start from the comprehension of the basis of the right to the silence, campared to the guided principle of the Democratic State of Right, emanates the logical of the doctrinal, the Legislator and the applicator of right to get together in order to give an exact application to the institute and its correspondings. The interrogation of an accused in a penal lawsuit, chance for him to be heard by the authority to present his version of the facts and to exercise his right of self-defense, since the old times, has changed a lot in its penal lawsuit system according to the ideological-social-cultural mentality of the historical moment. But the evolution of Science and Philosophy made new methods of investigation to come out. The accused started to be seen not as an evidence object but as someone who had rights. The right to remain silent started to be accepted as assurance of privacy and mainly as deduction of the principle against the self-incrimination. The study of principles which honor the right of being silent and its reflexes, and also of the investigation, makes evident the need of a discussion around the subject. It happens through the right of information, the supposed innocence, the contradiction, the wide defense, the prohibition of illicit evidences. The right to remain silent extends to all inquired person at the moment of his prision and in another case, by public officers, and also in the police investigation phase, in the instruction of the penal lawsuit and of parliamentary and administrative procedures, even when he is the witness or concerning to self-incriminative facts. So, it works in every moment that the inquired individual finds himself in front of answers which can harm him. It s a subjective public right that prevents disadvantageous interpretations against the one who is remaining silent. For its full exercise, it is necessary the information of this right to the titular and its extension as an exercise of free and aware will. The right of not being obliged to prove against himself permits to the accused not to help in producing evidences, translation of the right to preserve the privacy and inertness and specially the imputed person s spontaneous acts. And this work treats all this complexity in a unpretentious way / O moderno direito processual penal tem a destacada característica de avistar o imputado como sujeito de direitos a privilegiar o princípio maior da dignidade da pessoa humana, conquistado paulatinamente. A partir da compreensão do fundamento da garantia do direito ao silêncio, em cotejo com os princípios norteadores do Estado Democrático de Direito, emana a lógica da consonância do doutrinador, legislador e operador do direito de unirem-se para dar uma exata aplicação ao instituto com suas vertentes. O interrogatório do acusado no processo penal, oportunidade em que será ouvido pela autoridade para apresentar sua versão dos fatos e exercer seu direito de autodefesa, desde os tempos remotos, sofreu grandes alterações na sistemática processual de acordo com a mentalidade ideológico-social-cultural do momento histórico. Mas a evolução da ciência fez surgir novos métodos de investigação. O acusado passou a ser visto não como objeto da prova, mas como sujeito de direitos. O direito de silenciar passou a ser aceito como garantia da intimidade e, principalmente, como corolário do princípio contra a autoincriminação. O estudo dos princípios que prestigiam o direito ao silêncio e seus reflexos, bem como do interrogatório, evidencia a necessidade de debater o tema. Realiza-se através do direito à informação, da presunção de inocência, do contraditório, da ampla defesa, da proibição de provas ilícitas. O direito ao silêncio estende-se a toda pessoa questionada no momento da sua prisão e fora desta, por agentes públicos, bem assim na fase investigativa policial, na instrução do processo penal e dos procedimentos parlamentares e administrativos, mesmo quando estiver na qualidade de testemunha quanto a fatos auto-incriminatórios. Cabe em todo momento em que o indivíduo perquirido vê-se diante de respostas que possam prejudicá-lo. Trata-se de direito público subjetivo impeditivo da interpretação desfavorável contra aquele que silencia. Para seu pleno exercício, faz-se necessária a informação tanto deste direito ao titular como da amplitude de seu alcance como exercício da vontade livre e consciente, para que possa ser exercido plenamente. O direito de não ser obrigado a fazer prova contra si permite ao imputado não colaborar na produção da prova, tradução do exercício do direito de preservação da intimidade e inércia e, sobretudo, do agir espontâneo do imputado. É essa a complexidade tratada no presente trabalho

O princípio da não autoincriminação (ou princípio nemo tenetur se detegere) constitui não só um dos mais importantes princípios aplicáveis no contexto da produção probatória, mas também um dos princípios fundamentais do processo penal. O seu estudo está diretamente relacionado à tensão existente entre o interesse público na persecução penal e o interesse do indivíduo, no que diz respeito à observância das garantias fundamentais. A evolução, estrutura, alcance e as restrições ao referido princípio serão analisadas sob o enfoque do direito comparado, exercício este que nos propomos a ensaiar privilegiando uma referência abreviada à experiência americana. Após uma breve incursão sobre os sistemas processuais penais, a busca da verdade e os poderes do juiz temas intimamente relacionados ao assunto principal trataremos, sem a pretensão de esgotar o assunto, da dimensão assumida pelo privilege against self-incrimination no direito processual penal estadunidense e, posteriormente, do alcance do princípio da não autoincriminação no ordenamento brasileiro. Tendo em vista a matriz costumeira do Direito norte-americano, as linhas sobre o privilege serão traçadas, sobretudo, por meio da análise dos julgados da Suprema Corte. No ordenamento pátrio, o direito de não produzir prova contra si mesmo será tratado à luz dos entendimentos doutrinários distintos. O enfoque, em ambos os ordenamentos, dar-se-á também sob o prisma do direito ao silêncio, interrogatório, provas que dependem da colaboração do acusado, princípio da proporcionalidade e consequências advindas da violação ao princípio. / The privilege against self-incrimination (also known as nemo tenetur se detegere) is not only one of the most important rights in the context of evidence, but also a fundamental principle of criminal procedure. The study is intimately related to the tension between publics interest in punishment, in one side, and the preservation of a persons rights, on the other. The evolution, structure, scope and restrictions to this principle will be analyzed from the standpoint of comparative law, which we intend to accomplish by making a brief reference to the American experience. After a short foray concerning to the systems of criminal procedure, search for the truth and the powers of the judge topics that are closely related to the main subject we will discourse, without pretending to exhaust the theme, about the extent assumed by the privilege against self-incrimination in USAs criminal procedure and, subsequently, the dimension of the privilege against self-incrimination in brazilians criminal process. Given the peculiarities of the American Legal system, based on the concept of precedence, the lines on the privilege will be drawn, especially, through the analysis of U. S. Supreme Court cases. When it comes to brazilians procedure, the right against self-incrimination will be treated throughout the different doctrinal understandings. The focus in both jurisdictions will also be developed through the perspective of the right to remain silent, cross-examination, evidences that depends on the defendants cooperation, the principle of proportionality and the consequences resulting from the violation of the privilege.

La violence sexuelle est aujourd’hui, comme par le passé, largement utilisée comme arme de guerre et moyen de nettoyage ethnique. L’analyse de la jurisprudence internationale pénale fait ressortir la difficulté d’appréhender le crime sexuel par rapport aux catégories juridiques existantes. Le contexte dans lequel le crime sexuel est commis n’absorbe pas tous les aspects de ce crime. La nature considérée des crimes sexuels n’est pas réductible à la qualification de génocide, de crimes contre l’humanité, ou de crimes de guerre. Le juge international a pu préciser la frontière entre les infractions sexuelles et les autres infractions, montrer leur champ, leur intensité pour les distinguer des autres crimes. Cette avancée jurisprudentielle annonce peu à peu un fondement et une légitimité qui définissent des éléments de l’autonomisation des crimes sexuels en droit international. La codification du droit international par un nouveau traité spécifique aux crimes sexuels, avec des dispositions définissant cette catégorie particulière d’infraction, son appréhension et ses obligations juridiques permettra une meilleure répression de ce crime. / Sexual violence today is, as in the past, widely used as a weapon of war and a means of ethnic cleansing. The analysis of international criminal jurisprudence highlights the difficulty of apprehending this new offense in relation to the existing legal categories. The nature of sexual crimes is not reducible to genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The international judge, through constant legal reasoning, was able to clarify the boundary between sexual offenses and other offenses, to show their scope and intensity to distinguish them from other crimes. This advance in jurisprudence gradually builds a foundation and legitimacy that define elements of the empowerment of sexual crimes under international law. The codification of international law through a new treaty specific to sexual crimes, with provisions defining this particular category of offense, its apprehension and its legal obligations will allow a better repression of this crime.

Le développement massif de la criminalité internationale et des atteintes aux droits fondamentaux a eu pour conséquence une intrusion grandissante du droit international dans les sphères de compétences répressives nationales. Au détriment de la souveraineté pénale, le droit international prescrit aux Etats des contraintes majeures. Dès lors qu'il prohibe un comportement criminel, dans une optique répressive, le droit international impose aux Etats d'incriminer l'infraction, d'établir leur compétence pénale, de poursuivre et de coopérer, et, le cas échéant, de sanctionner pénalement. Cependant, le droit international n'a pas vocation à édicter directement des sanctions pénales et à se substituer aux autorités de l'Etat. En matière répressive, il vient poser des règles, dont le respect s'impose aux Etats. Même si l'atteinte à la souveraineté pénale est certaine, le canal étatique reste<br />privilégié.

Univ., Diss.--Göttingen, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. 291 - 317.

In this article, the author attempts to establish the limitations and consequences resulting from the use of evidence that, being obtained from the exercise of the powers of investigation and enforcement that owns the Treasury, then is carried to the tax criminal proceedings, as the basis for the complaint made by the Tax Administration. For this, the author approaches the taxpayer’s right against self-incrimination (or not to incriminate himself ) as well as some general concepts of the state of innocence, and then analyzes how these concepts are related to the tax law, specifically with the evidence inside it. The article also contains a number of ideas that attempts to summarize the thoughts and positions taken on the issue in current doctrine and jurisprudence in Argentina, establishing in turn, parallel situations and comparisons with the Peruvian tax system.

Mot propre au langage juridique, l’illicéité signifie la contrariété au droit. Oscillant entre l’illégalité et l’injustice, elle est une catégorie juridique souvent rejetée par les pénalistes. En réalité, l’illicéité aborde les interdits posés par le droit pénal à partir de leurs essences. Elle peut ainsi apparaître inutile et même dangereuse – en droit pénal la contrariété au droit est synonyme d’illégalité et le juge pénal n’a pas à se demander si le comportement poursuivi est en outre injuste. Néanmoins, il convient de ne pas oublier que « même pénale, la loi n’a pas tous les droits » et que les dispositions pénales n’ont pas comme unique destinataire le juge. À l’heure où il est de plus en plus question de regénéralisation et de rethéorisation du droit pénal, l’illicéité mérite en effet d’être placée au centre des réflexions pénalistes, car elle invite à s’intéresser à ce qui est essentiel dans les interdits pénalement consacrés en fonction des besoins et capacités du destinataire principal des dispositions pénales – le profane. En mesure de recouvrir ce qu’on peut réellement attendre d’un non-spécialiste, l’illicéité indique ainsi ce qui doit guider la détermination et la définition des infractions pour que le droit pénal soit légitime et effectif. Dans cette perspective, pour saisir ce que constitue l’essence des interdits pénalement consacrés, il ne suffit pas de se référer aux dispositions pénales mais il faut exploiter entièrement les normes et valeurs révélées par la conscience sociale qui exercent une influence déterminante sur le droit pénal. Car si les repères proprement pénaux ne sont pas en mesure de dévoiler à eux seuls l’essence des interdits, la conscience sociale fournit des critères de justice objectifs et opérationnels adaptés au profane permettant d’aborder adéquatement le droit pénal dans le cadre de l’ensemble normatif dans lequel il s’insère. / Illicitness, a word particular to the legal language signifies the defiance of the law. Oscillating between illegality and injustice, it is a legal category often rejected by French criminal lawyers. In reality, illicitness touches the essence of the prohibitions posed by the criminal law. It can thus appear unnecessary and even dangerous – in criminal law the defiance of the law is synonymous with illegality and the criminal judge does not have to wonder if the continued behaviour is also unjust. Nevertheless, we should not forget that “even criminal, the law does not have all the rights” and that criminal provisions are not only intended for the judge. At a time when it is increasingly a question of re-generalisation and re-theorisation of the criminal law, illicitness merits being placed in effect at the centre of the criminal lawyers’ reflections, for it invites interest in what is essential in the prohibitions enacted as criminal by reference to the main recipient of the criminal provisions – the layman. Able to cover what you can really expect from a non-lawyer, illicitness indicates in this way what must guide the determination and the definition of the offences in order that the criminal law is legitimate and effective. In this perspective, in order to grasp what animates deeply the restrictions laid down as criminal, it is not enough to refer to the provisions but it is necessary also to fully exploit the norms and values revealed by the social conscience which exerts a decisive influence on the criminal law. For if the strictly criminal bench marks are not by themselves able to reveal what gives meaning to the forbidden, social awareness provides the objective and operational criteria of illicitness adapted to the layman to adequately address the criminal law in the framework of the normative set in which it fits.

Each year, an estimated 318,000 defendants who do not comprehend the Miranda warnings waive their rights and provide incriminating evidence without the protection of counsel (Rogers, 2008), which make Miranda-related competencies one of the most pervasive pretrial issues. A wide range of issues could potentially affect an individual's capacity to provide a knowing and intelligent waiver. Previous Miranda research has focused narrowly on the effects of cognitive and developmental factors. The current study added to the Miranda literature by examining the impact of two highly prevalent conditions found in correctional populations, attention deficits and substance abuse. Adult defendants in custody (N = 118) were evaluated within 36 hours of arrest in order to assess both chronic psychological disorders and situational variables. Results indicate that attention deficits have a significant impact on defendants' ability to provide a knowing Miranda waiver, whereas substance use profoundly affected their reasoning about Miranda waiver decisions. This study represents the first systematic investigation of the effect of transient mental states on Miranda-related abilities with criminal defendants. Important implications for forensic practice are addressed.

Si la question de l'inclusion des actes de terrorisme dans la notion de crime contre l'humanité avait déjà été abordée à plusieurs reprises dans certains travaux, c'est au lendemain des attentats terroristes du 11 septembre 2001 perpétrés aux États-Unis d'Amérique qu'elle s'est posée avec acuité. Cette étude est née de la volonté de savoir si le terrorisme pourrait être considéré comme un crime contre l'humanité. Celle-ci se veut une analyse des points de ressemblance et de dissemblance entre l'incrimination et la criminalité terroristes d'une part et celles liées au crime contre l'humanité d'autre part. Si à certains égards, le terrorisme se rapproche du crime contre l'humanité, par la violence et le contexte idéologique qui les caractérisent, il n'en demeure pas moins qu'il s'agit de deux criminalités essentiellement différentes. Étant donné que traiter du crime contre l'humanité et du terrorisme, c'est aborder des sujets où se trouvent étroitement imbriqués le droit, l'histoire, la politique et la sociologie politique, l'étude ne se limite pas au seul droit pénal. / If the matter of including terrorist acts in the notion of crime against humanity had already been approached repeatedly in certain research works, since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, committed in the United States of America, it raised intensively. This study grew from the will to know if terrorism could be considered as a crime against humanity. This one aims to be an analysis of similarities and disparities between terrorist incrimination and criminality on the one hand and those linked with crime against humanity on the other hand. If in certain respects, terrorism gets closer to the crime against humanity, by violence and ideological context which characterize them, the fact remains that they are essentially two different forms of criminalities. Given that dealing with crime against humanity and terrorism, will raise subjects in which are closely interconnected law, history, politics and political sociology, thus the study is not restricted to the plain criminal law.