Warning is the action and effect of warning (calling attention to something, advising, preventing). When someone tries to give a warning to another person, he tries to warn them about something in particular. For example: “It is not a threat, it is a warning: if you harm my daughter, you will see me”, “Luckily I heard the warning from my friends and I did not accept their proposal”, “If you want to work in this company for many years, you should heed my warnings. ”
The warning is also the poster or brief writing in which the public is warned. This is a signal that alerts you to the imminent or actual existence of a threat, risk, or danger. The warnings also indicate to your recipient that a certain action by you may be risky or punishable.
Many traffic signs can be considered as warnings. If the sign indicates that the maximum speed allowed is 80 kilometers per hour, the sign is warning that whoever exceeds said speed will be fined. In a similar sense, the poster in contramano warns that it is not possible to advance in a certain direction; if you do so, the driver will incur a violation.
When browsing the Internet, users are faced with different warnings that indicate risky web pages, files infected with viruses or content not suitable for minors.
Discs, movies and magazines, among other works, display warnings about the type of content (suitable for all audiences, prohibited for people under 18, etc.).
The warning (of) Miranda or Miranda Rights is the notice that must be received by every US defendant who is taken to testify regarding the realization of a crime of which he is considered a suspect. This is to remind you that you have the constitutional right not to say a word and to require the assistance of a lawyer during questioning.
The information that the police can demand of a detainee are their name, address and date of birth. Any confession you make during detention is not valid at trial, unless you have been aware of your rights before making it and have ensured that you understand the Miranda Warning.
The origin of this concept dates back to 1963, when a man named Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. The story tells that Miranda confessed his crime without having received any type of warning about the rights guaranteed by his Constitution, and that the prosecutor used only that confession to obtain his conviction.
Three years later, the Supreme Court reversed the sentence, based on the theory that Miranda’s statement had been the result of intimidation during interrogation. Therefore, the criminal was subjected to a second trial, for which the prosecution had to gather evidence of legal validity, and have the presence of witnesses to support the accusation. Finally, Miranda was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Some time later, the rapist was stabbed to death in the middle of a violent confrontation; his murderer received the pertinent reading of the Miranda Rights, on which he relied not to offer a statement without the presence of a lawyer.
The ruling issued by the Supreme Court indicates that every individual in custody must be warned about their right to remain silent and, very importantly, to know that any statement they make during their detention can be used against them at the time of trial. In the same way, they must indicate to her that if she does not have the financial means to hire a lawyer, the State has the obligation to bear the necessary expenses for her defense.