Journal of Comparative Law

Journal of Comparative Law

Function and Guarantee of Defendant’s Waiver of Silence in the Iran and the United States’ Criminal Law and Jurisprudence

Document Type : Research Article

Author
Associate Professor, Department of Law, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
The right to remain silent and the necessity for the police to declare this right to the accused in Iranian criminal law has a function and a guarantee of execution. However, the waiver of the right to remain silent, its function and the guarantee of its implementation are vacuum in the Iran’s criminal law. This situation has the function and guarantee of execution in the United States’ criminal law and jurisprudence of its courts. In this sense, it is important to consider the two legal systems in order to answer the question, what is the function and guarantee of the defendant’s waiver of the right to remain silent? The findings of the study show that the silence of the accused during the police interrogation of him in any case means the exercise of the right to remain silent. However, the United States’ criminal law and jurisprudence make a distinction in this regard. If the accused is silent during the police interrogation, his silence means waiving the right to remain silent. Given that the accused is not in custody, his silence in the face of police interrogation does not mean exercising his right to remain silent. Therefore, in order to avoid this situation, accused must explicitly state that he wants to invoke his right to remain silent, even though police did not warn him to remain silent before start of interrogation. Otherwise, defendant’s silence means his waiver of right to remain silent and result is to his detriment at trial stage.
Keywords

Subjects


A) Books and Articles
Abdinezhad, saleh, Soodabeh Azizi, Abdollah Hendiyani, and Hamid Mogaddam. “Police Approach to the Silence Right of Accused in the Code of Criminal”. Quarterly of Order and Security Guards, vol. 10. no. 37(2017):147-172.[In Persian]
Friedland, Steven. “Post-Miranda Silence in the Wired Era: Reconstructing Real Time Silence in the Face of Police Questioning”. Mississippi Law Journal, vol. 80. no. 4(2010):1339-1370.
Gasemi Moghadam, Hassan. “Realization of Accused Rights by Judicial Policemen, focused on Criminal Procedure Act Adopted in 1392”. Journal of Criminal Law Research, vol. 6. no. 2(2015):129-153. [In Persian]
Habibzadeh, Mohammad Jafar, and Valiyollah Sadeghi. “Recognition and Management of Right to Silence”. The Judiciary’s Law Journal, vol. 80. no. 95(2016): 61-81. [In Persian]
Heidari, Elham. “Rights of the Accused in the Stage of Being Under Surveillance in the Criminal Procedure Act and its Compatibility with English Law”. Judicial Law Views Quarterly, vol. 20. no. 71(2015): 27-53. [In Persian]
Kinports, Kit. “The Supreme Court’s Love-Hate Relationship with Miranda”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 101. no. 2(2011): 375-440, 421–22.
Mirkamali, Alireza and Mohammad Ali Khademolfoghara. “Approaches to Real Delinquency”. Journal of Criminal Law Research, vol. 5. no. 1(2104): 189-213. [In Persian]
Moazenzadegan, Hasanali, and Hussein Muhammad Kourepaz. “Sanctions for the Violation of Citizenship Rights in the Police Investigation Process”. Journal of Criminal Law Doctrines, vol. 13. no. 11(2017): 53-86. [In Persian]
Powell, L. Jessica. “Do You Understand Your Rights as I have Read them to You? Understanding the Warnings Fifty Years Post Miranda”. Journal of Northern Kentucky Law Review, vol. 43. no. 3(2016):435-464.
Sacharoff, Laurent. “Miranda, Berghuis, and the Ambiguous Right to Cut off Police Questioning”, Northern Kentucky Law Review, vol. 43. no. 3(2016): 389-412.
Sacharoff, Laurent. “Miranda’s Hidden Right”, Alabama Law Review, vol. 63. no. 3(2012):535-590.
Salehi, Javad “Defendant’s Silence Connection with the Principle of Self Incrimination and its Safeguards in Criminal Law of Iran and United States Jurisprudence”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 8. no. 15(2020): 7-30. [In Persian]
Taylor, Bryan. “You Have the Right to Be Confused! Understanding Miranda after 50 Years”, Pace Law Review, vol. 36. no. 1(2015): 158-214.
B) Judicial Decisions
Butler, 441 U.S. (1979).
Davis, 512 U.S. (1994).
Hurd v. Terhune, 619 F.3d (9th Cir. 2010).
Miranda, 384 U.S. (1966).
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. (2004).
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. (2013).
State v. Butler, 244 S.E.2d (N.C. 1978).
Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. (2010)
 
 
 
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.