묵비권과 변호인의 도움을 받을 권리 - 미란다 판결의 법사회학적 분석 -

The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established the principles and practices of procedural justice for suspects in custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings enshrine the consitutional rights of custodial suspects against self-incrimination. These rights are consisting of five basic components: (1) right to silence, (2) use of any statements against the suspect, (3) right to counsel, (4) access to counsel for indigent suspects, and (5) assertion of rights at any time. Thanks to popular TV dramas like ‘Law and Order’, most people are quite familiar with a scene in which a police officer reads the suspect the standard Miranda warnings off of a card. It seems, therefore, that the principle and practice of Miranda warnings became an integral part of our legal culture. Part II describes in detail the background of the Miranda trial in order to lay a foundation for further analysis of the case. Part III deals with the exclusionary rule, one of the most distinctive and controversial legal doctrine stemmed from the U.S. Supreme Court. The part discusses the major positions taken by U.S. and State courts before and after the Miranda decision. Part IV summarizes the contributions and shortcomings of the landmark decision, and proposes a much realistic approach to the problem. The paper suggests that the right to remain silent should be considered as a pair with the right to counsel. Without the latter, the former can hardly be used for the benefit of any suspects.