L'évolution paradoxale du droit de garder le silence : analyse de l'argumentation juridique de deux arrêts de la Cour suprême des États-Unis Miranda (1966) et Berghuis (2010)

Abstract : In the United States, the right to remain silent for people arrested and taken into police custody for interrogation is well-known. Most of the time, this right is clearly stated by police officers when they arrest a suspect before interrogating him. The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure and the argumentation of two significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions dealing with the right to silence, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), then to pick out the textual clues that enable the reader to find the different arguments used by the Justices to devise and implement the Miranda rules. The study, thus, aims at comparing the two legal decisions in order to determine if the privilege against self-incrimination has evolved in early 21st century both in France and in the U.S.A.
Document type :
Journal articles
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [22 references]  Display  Hide  Download

https://hal-univ-lyon3.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00980082
Contributor : Marion Charret del Bove <>
Submitted on : Thursday, July 21, 2016 - 10:00:41 AM
Last modification on : Monday, December 2, 2019 - 12:10:02 PM

File

asp-3315-63-l-evolution-parado...
Publisher files allowed on an open archive

Identifiers

  • HAL Id : hal-00980082, version 1

Collections

Citation

Marion Charret del Bove. L'évolution paradoxale du droit de garder le silence : analyse de l'argumentation juridique de deux arrêts de la Cour suprême des États-Unis Miranda (1966) et Berghuis (2010). ASp - La revue du GERAS, revue.org (en ligne) / Bordeaux : GERAS (imprimé), 2013, 63, pp.93-111. ⟨hal-00980082⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

284

Files downloads

702