Defendant's Silence Connection with the Principle of Self Incrimination and its Safeguards in Criminal Law of Iran and United States Jurisprudence

Document Type : Original Article


Associate Professor of Law Department, Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, Iran.


Defendant's right to silence is a guarantee of his defense rights and is in direct connection with the principle of Self-Incrimination. This situation is different by requirements function in criminal law of Iran and United States Jurisprudence. Study of the relationship between the right to silence and the principle of self-incrimination in criminal law of Iran and the United States Jurisprudence, and precondition for the detention of the accused and how it is cited in the conviction of the accused, with regard to possible safeguards, is subject of this article. Main question of this research is what is the relationship between the principle of self-incrimination and the declaration of the right of silence to the accused in criminal law and its safeguard? Findings of this research show that the principle of self-incrimination and the observance of the defendant's right to silence are both parts of fair trial’s coin. Observance of the right to silence and the principle of self-incrimination are separate in Iran's criminal law and non-distorted based on their own, but are not subject to any preconditions. United States Jurisprudence have interpreted the principle of Self-Incrimination as set forth right to silence in the fifth Constitution Amendment, and they are subordinate to same guarantee of insubstantiated statements made by the accused, but believes precondition for them.


فهرست منابع

الف. منابع فارسی
القاصی‌مهر، علی، علی جانی‌پور و شهرام ابراهیمی. «کنترل تحت نظر در حقوق کیفری ایران و فرانسه». پژوهشنامه حقوق کیفری 2 (1397): 53-31.
ایزدی‌فرد، علی‌اکبر، جلال‌الدین صمصامی و حسین کاویار. «مبانی اصل 38 قانون اساسی ایران و تحلیل سیاست کیفری ایران در حمایت از آن». فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق بشر اسلامی 4 (1392): 36-9.
حیدری، الهام. «حقوق دفاعی متهم در دوران تحت نظر در قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری و بررسی تطبیقی آن با حقوق انگلستان». فصلنامه دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی 71 (1394): 52-27.
رحمدل، منصور. «تشریفات قانونی و دادرسی و آثار مترتب بر عدم‌ِرعایت آنها در امور کیفری». مجله آموزه‌های حقوق کیفری 15 (1397): 187-157.
صالحی، جواد. «سکوت؛ جلوه‌ای از حقوق دفاعی متهم در دادرسی عادلانه». مجله مطالعات حقوقی 3 (1388): 93-69.
صبوری‌پور، مهدی. «قاعده رد ادلّه در حقوق ایالات‌متحده و مقایسه آن با ضمانت‌اجراهای مشابه در حقوق ایران». مجله آموزه‌های حقوق کیفری 9 (1394): 154-129.
مؤذن‌زادگان، حسنعلی و سحر سهیل‌مقدم. «قاعده بطلان دلیل در دادرسی کیفری (با تأکید بر حقوق آمریکا)». مجله مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی 7 (1395): 267-243.
نوبهار، رحیم، حسین علیزاده طباطبایی و محمدرضا آیتی. «ممنوعیت مطلق شکنجه: چشم‫اندازی اسلامی». مجله تحقیقات حقوقی 81 (1397): 190-163.
ب. منابع خارجی
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. (1984).
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. (1976).
Emmerson, Ben, Andrew Ashworth and Alison Macdonald. Human Rights and Criminal Justice. 3rd Ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2012.
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. (1965).
Hapner, M. Andrew. “You Have the Right to Remain Silent, but Anything You Don’t Say May be Used against You: The Admissibility of Silence as Evidence after Salinas v. Texas.” Florida Law Review 66 (2015): 1763-1778.
Mansour, Lukas. “The Sound of Silence: Evidentiary Analyses of Precustodial Silence in Light of Salinas v. Texas.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 105 (2015): 271-295.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 467 (1966).
Salinas v. State, 369 S.W.3d (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. (2013) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. (2013).
Stewart, M. Adam. “The Silent Domino: Allowing Pre-Arrest Silence as Evidence of Guilt and the Possible Effect on Miranda.” Suffolk University Law Review 37 (2004): 189-209.
Tomkovicz, James J. Constitutional Exclusion: The Rules, Rights, and Remedies that Strike the Balance between Freedom and Order. London: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Willis, Vanessa. “The Government’s Use of Pre-Miranda Silence in Its Case-in-Chief: An Alternative Approach under Schmerber v. California.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 77 (2008): 741-58.
Zendeli, B. Arta. “Privilege against Self-Incrimination-Guarantee for Fair Trial in Modern Criminal Procedures.” Revista de Stiinte Politice 47 (2015): 155-64.