Final answer:
The legal duty to warn arises from the need to protect the rights of the accused as established by the Miranda Warning following the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona. It includes informing suspects of their rights, such as the right to remain silent and that anything they say can be used in court. This is a critical protection to ensure fairness in the justice system.
Step-by-step explanation:
The legal duty to warn or mandate to inform is a result of the need to protect the due process rights of individuals accused of crimes, as exemplified in legal landmarks such as the Miranda Warning. The Miranda Warning specifically is a procedural safeguard to ensure that suspects are adequately and effectively apprised of their rights during an arrest or interrogation, which includes, but is not limited to, the right to remain silent and the warning that anything said can be used against them in court. These rights were established by the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona and have since become a fundamental part of the justice system in the United States, frequently mentioned in police procedurals and everyday language.
Failure to provide adequate legal counsel can result in a violation of these protections according to Strickland v. Washington, and Padilla v. Kentucky highlighted the importance of informing clients of the risks of deportation post-conviction. The implementation of these warnings and advisements is a critical component of the legal system to maintain fairness and prevent coercion and false confessions. Additionally, protection of the accused ensures the balance of justice between the rights of the accused and the victims of crimes.