미국에서의 미란다 법칙과 그 실효성 확보방안
The Miranda rule and its Effectiveness in the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
미국에서는 피의자‧피고인의 방어권을 침해하여 얻은 자백의 증거능력을 부정하는 이른바 ‘미란다 법칙’을 확립하였다. 신체구속 중인 피의자를 조사하는 경우 그 피의자에게 미란다 고지를 하여야 하고, 이를 위반하여 얻은 진술의 증거능력은 획일적으로 부정해 오고 있는 것이다. 이러한 미란다 판결이 선고된 이후 미란다 법칙은 수사실무에 큰 장애를 초래하고 있다는 비판을 받아 왔지만 실제 미란다 법칙이 수사실무에 미친 영향은 그다지 크지 않다는 견해가 지배적이다. 미란다 판결이 신체구속 중 조사에 내포되어 있는 강제에 주목하여 그에 대한 보호수단을 설정하였지만 피의자의 권리포기를 인정하고, 특히 그 권리포기의 절차를 신체구속 중에 밀실에서 행한다는 점에 근거하고 있다고 할 수 있다. 예컨대 피의자에게 권리를 극진히 보호하였다고 하더라도 그 권리의 행사가 실제로 매우 곤란하다고 한다면 이러한 권리를 아무리 피의자에게 보장한다고 하더라도 그 권리는 빗 좋은 개살구일 뿐이다. 특히 우리나라에서는 피의자 신문과정에 변호인이 참여하는 비율이 매우 낮은데 그 주된 이유는 수사기관의 변호인 참여에 대한 부정적인 태도라고 볼 수 있다. 결국 미란다 법칙은 미란다 권리의 행사하는 데 그 실효성을 확보하기 위한 노력이 필요하다. 이에 그 실효성을 확보하기 위해서는 변호인과 상담을 거치지 않은 가운데 얻어진 자백의 증거사용을 배제하거나, 변호인을 자동적으로 선임하거나, 변호인의 참여 없이 얻어진 자백을 전면적으로 증거사용을 배제하는 등의 노력이 행해져야 할 것이다.
Abstract
A criminal suspect isolated from the outside is said to be in practice obliged to tolerate interrogation. Therefore, the suspect can not withdraw from the interrogation room by his own intention, and the suspects must continue to respond to the enthusiastic persuasion by the investigators. The suspects who appoint counsel at this stage are less than 60%. Even if you are appointed counsel, you can not contact with us at any time during the interrogation, and you have to wait until the interview or the most recent break. It is not allowed to see counsel on the occasion of interrogation and to receive advice. The Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act, in order to guarantee and realize the defendant’s right to defend the defendant, imposed an obligation of the right to veto the statement, the right to receive counsel’s assistance, the right to appoint an attorney, the right to visit and traffic. These defense rights realize the principle of due procedure that they must discover the facts within the framework of human rights guarantees, after realizing the human rights of the suspects and defendants. This is to guarantee the status of the suspect, as not the object of the investigation, but the status of the subject in the preparatory procedure. however, in terms of the investigative agency, the right of defense, which is guaranteed to the suspect, is the limit of investigation. In the United States, the so-called “Miranda Rule” has been established, denying the evidence of the infringement of the defendant's right to defense. when investigating a suspect under arrest, the suspect must be reported to Miranda, and the ability of the evidence obtained in violation thereof has been uniformly denied. Although Miranda rule, after the judgment of Miranda has been sentenced, has been criticized for causing serious obstacles to the practice of investigation, the effect on the practice of investigation is not so large. In particular, the percentage of attorney’s participation in the defendant’s investigation procedure is very low in Korea, which can be regarded as a negative attitude to the attorney’s participation in the investigation. In conclusion, Miranda’s law requires efforts to ensure the effectiveness of Miranda’s rights. it must to be, to ensure its effectiveness, excluded the use of evidence of confessions obtained without consulting counsel or attorney’s participation, or to be automatically appointed an attorney.
참고문헌 (40)
- 김민지, "한국형 미란다 경고의 문제점과 개선 방안", 형사정책연구, 23(3), pp.53~89 (2012), 한국형사정책연구원
- 차용석, "접견교통권의 제문제", 사법행정, 347 (1989)
- Craig M. Bradley, "The Failure of the Criminal Procedure Revolution" (1993), University of Pennsylvania Press
- Richard A. Leo, "Police Interrogation and American Justice" (2008), Harvard University Press
- Stephen A. Saltzburg, "American Criminal Procedure: Cases and Commentary", pp.2007, Tomson
- Scott Christianson, "Innocent: Inside Wrongful Conviction Cases" (2004), New York University Press
- Welsh S. White, "Miranda’s Waning Protection: Police Interrogation Practices after Dickerson" (2003), The University of Michigan Press
- Anne Elizabeth Link, "Fifth Amendment-Constitutionality of Custodial Confession", The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, pp.878~ (1992)
- Anthony G. Amsterdam, "The Supreme Court and the Right of Suspects in Criminal Cases", New York University L. Rev, 45, pp.785~ (1970)
- Arnold N. Enker, "Counsel for the Suspect: Massiah v. United States and Escobedo v. Illinois", Minnesota L. Tev, 49, pp.47~ (1964)
- Arthur E. Sutherland, Jr, "Crime and Confession", Harvard L. Rev, 79, pp.21~ (1965)
- B. J. George, Jr, "Interrogation of Criminal Defendants- Some Views on Miranda v. Arizona", Fordham L. Rev, 35, pp.193~ (1966)
- Charles J. Ogletree, "Are Confessions Really Good for the Soul?: A Proposal to Miranda", Harvard L. Rev, 100, pp.1826~ (1989)
- Edwin D. Driver, "Confession and the Social Psychology of Coercion", Harvard L. Rev, 82, pp.59~ (1968)
- Irene Merker Rosenberg, "A Modest Proposal for the Abolition of Custodial Interrogations", North Carolina L. Rev, 68, pp.69~ (1989)
- Fred E. Inbau, "Public Safely v. Individual Liberties: The Prosecutor’s Stand", The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 53, pp.85~ (1962)
- Fred E. Inbau, "Miranda v. Arizona- Is It Worth the cost?", California Western L. Rev, 24, pp.185~ (1988)
- Gerald M. Caplan, "Questioning Miranda", Vanderbilt L. Rev, 38, pp.1417~ (1985)
- Janet E. Ainsworth, "In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation", Yale L. J, 103, pp.259~ (1987)
- A. E. Dick Howard, "Criminal Justice in Our Time" (1965), The University Press of Virginia
- Neil A. Milner, "Comparative Analysis of Patterns of Compliance with Supreme Court Dicisions: 'Miranda' and the Police in Four Communities", Law and Society Rev, 5, pp.119~ (1970)
- Paul G. Cassell, "Handcuffing the Cops? A Thirty-Year Perspective on Miranda’s Harmful Effects on Law Enforcement", Stanford L. Rev, 50, pp.1055~ (1998)
- Paul G. Cassell, "Police Interrogation in the 1990’s: An Empirical Study of Miranda", UCLA L. Rev, 43, pp.839~ (1996)
- Paul G. Cassell, "Protecting the Innocent from False and Lost Confession-and from Miranda", Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, pp.497~ (1998)
- Richard A. Leo, "Inside the Interrogation Room", The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 86, pp.266~ (1996)
- Richard A. Leo, "The Impact of Miranda Revisited", The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86 (2008)
- Richard A. Leo, "The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of Justice in the Age of Psychological Interrogation", The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, pp.429~ (1998)
- Richard Seeburger, "Miranda in Pittsburgh- A Statistic Study", University of Pittsburgh L. Rev, 29, pp.1~ (1967)
- Richard J. Medalie, "Custodial police Interrogation in Our Nation’s Capital: The Attempt to Implement Miranda", Michigan L. Rev, 66, pp.1347~ (1968)
- Susan Bandes, "Patterns of Injustice: Police Brutality in the Courts", Buffalo L. Rev, 47, pp.1275~ (1999)
- Stephen J. Markman, "The Fifth Amendment at Justice: A Reply", University of Chicago L. Rev, 54, pp.950~ (1987)
- Stephen J. Markman, "Miranda v. Arizona: A Historical Prospective", American Criminal Law Rev, 24, pp.193~ (1987)
- Stephen J. Markman, "The Fifth Amendment and Custodial Questioning: A Response to 'Reconsidering Miranda'", University of Chicago L. Rev, 54, pp.938~ (1987)
- Stephen J. Markman, "Miranda Decision Revisited: Did it Give Criminal Too Many Rights?", UMKC L. Rev, 57, pp.15~ (1988)
- Stephen J. Schulhofer, "Confession and the Court", Michigan L. Rev, 79, pp.865~ (1981)
- Welsh S. White, "Miranda’s Waning Protections: Police Interrogation Practices after Dickerson", pp.47~ (2001), The University of Michigan Press
- Welsh S. White, "Defending Miranda: A Reply to Professor Caplan", Vanderbilt L. Rev, 39, pp.1~ (1986)
- W. Witt, "Non-coercive Interrogation and the Administration of Criminal Justice: The Impact of Miranda on Police Effectuality", The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64, pp.320~ (1973)
- Welsh S. White, "Defending Miranda: A Reply to Professor Caplan", Vanderbilt L. Rev, 39, pp.1~ (1986)
- Welsh S. White, "Miranda’s Failure to Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practice, 99 Michigan L. Matthew Lippman, A Commentary on Inbau and Manak’s 'Miranda v. Arizona- Is It Worth the Cost? (A Sample survey, with Commentary, of the Expenditure of Court Time and Effort)'", Cal. Western L. Rev, 25, pp.87~ (1988)