to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them

[GoodTaste]

Well, is the grammatical place of "to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them":

(For convenience, I remove the supplementary parts)

The Miranda warning is a right to silence warning given by police to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.

===>>> Now I make it simpler:

It is a right to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them.

Okay, Does " the admissibility of their statements" mean "(criminal suspects')quality of being admissible to the statements (which are against them)"?

I am sorry it is rather confusing to me. I am almost certain I've got it wrong. But how to understand it correctly?

-------------------
The Miranda warning, which also can be referred to as the Miranda rights, is a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.


Source (Wikipedia)

 

[GoesStation]

Defendants have no interest in preserving the admissibility of evidence against them. That's what the police want. Police give the Miranda warning to make sure they can use the suspect's statements against the suspect in court. The Miranda warning serves to preserve suspects' right to silence.

 

[GoodTaste]

Defendants have no interest in preserving the admissibility of evidence against them. That's what the police want. Police give the Miranda warning to make sure they can use the suspect's statements against the suspect in court. The Miranda warning serves to preserve suspects' right to silence.

My understanding got improved. But it is still not very clear to me.

Does "preserving the admissibility of evidence" refer to "(police) keeping the evidence of a suspect's admission of comitting a crime"?

 

[GoesStation]

My understanding got improved. But it is still not very clear to me.

Does "preserving the admissibility of evidence" refer to "(police) keeping the evidence of a suspect's admission of comitting a crime"?

No. Evidence is admissible when it can be used in court ("admitted into evidence" in legal English). If you are accused of a crime and say something that could suggest you are guilty, your statement can't be used in court - is not admissible - unless you were warned first.

If you've seen any American crime dramas, you've seen scenes where police officers read suspects their rights. They say "You have the right to remain silent," and so on. The list of rights is called "Miranda rights" because it originated when a suspect named Miranda won a case in the Supreme Court because he had not been told he did not have to answer questions.

British crime dramas show police officers reciting a similar list of rights to suspects. I don't know if this practice has a name in British jurisprudence, but obviously it's not called "Mirandizing" like the American version.

 

[emsr2d2]

In the UK, it's the "police caution". You can read the wording of it HERE (bottom of page). It's usually preceded by "I am arresting you on suspicion of [name of offence]."

Slightly confusingly, after you've been arrested for and charged with something, and if you admit the offence, your punishment can also be a "police caution". It's a formal warning and is usually given for very minor offences - teenagers being caught for the first time shoplifting small items, for example. It's not considered a "previous offence" theoretically, so it doesn't necessarily have to be declared, but a court can take it into account if you're later convicted of another offence. You can read about it HERE.