The Right to Remain Silent

[perseus]

Tweeter & the Monkey Man

The law is never perfect but surely the hope is for justice. If someone is innocent why wouldn't they help the Police, if a crime has been committed. Why sit in silence? If your friend was killed wouldn't you want people to help the Police find out who did it and why. Right to remain silent is generally beneficial to people who have got something to hide.

Because the Police often work on complaints and the person making the complaint may have misrepresented her case. The same goes for allegations of benefit fraud by a third party. You will get warned though. Once you become targetted get legal advice, especially with the taxman. If you want to stitch somebody up, the taxman route I have seen used. But I only have hearsay evidence. I would not want to collaborate it, would you? Collaboration does not work if you are a target, they are out to get you.

 

[jevs]

It's not a level playing field, best bet is not to play.

Or do the f***ing crime in the first place !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tory Boy]

Um explain to me where I said they did?

So you don't take issue with the talking out of your arse bit?

TB

 

[dingodan]

Or do the f***ing crime in the first place !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm talking about the innocent as much as the guilty.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Larger than you would think.

The Innocence Project did a study in the U.S. and found that in cases where people were exonerated using DNA evidence, in 25% of those cases, the innocent person gave incriminating statements, confessed, or pled guilty.

But that's the US, and my belief is that there is a very different system of justice there. For example, there is no Human Rights Act. There is no Police & Criminal Evidence Act. Their system seems to be very much geared towards gaining a confession, which is something that the UK (or at least England & Wales, as that's the part I'm familiar with) system moved away from that a long time ago.

I'm talking about every day, run of the mill offences, not the sort of serious level stuff that would require reams of DNA evidence. Thefts, criminal damage, assaults (please don't think I'm trivialising those, merely using them as an example). Not so much murders, as occasionally people do falsely confess to killings, usually through mental health issues. Not many people falsely confess to nicking a chicken from Tesco. You'll just have to trust me on that one.

We're not in the Gene Hunt era, or even like the coppers in EastEnders, whose procedure usually seems to follow the lines of

"Did you do it?"

"No comment"

<copper bangs fist on table> "I KNOW you did it, you scrote"

"Oh ALRIGHT THEN! I DID IT!"

Here's the deal. Someone gets nicked. They get a solicitor. If you tell a solicitor you did it, they'll advise you to either admit it, provide an account but put up some kind of defence (ie "it was self defence") or to go no comment, as to offer a false account risks you getting tripped up as a result of evidence that may be to hand. No reputable solicitor will ever advise you to lie. So you stay silent, or say no comment to everything put to you. It's no big deal, virtually every shoplifter I've ever arrested has gone no comment. I have no issue with it, and mostly they get charged because the evidence is already there of them committing the offence. They know and I know they're only exercising their right not to incriminate themselves.

Besides, as has already been posted by somebody else- whether anecdotal or not- there are occasions when the silence of defendants has ended up with them all being acquitted.

 

[The Fifth Column]

I understand your position, however, in my opinion, if you tell me that my defense may be harmed by my exercising of my rights, that works to discourage me from exercising my rights. If I can suffer adverse consequences for exercising a right, it is not really a right.

You are right that in practice people are not punished in court for remaining silent, but for the most part people don't remain silent. Because "it may harm their defense". Because they know that most people believe, and maybe they also believe, that only the guilty refuse to talk.

It's a culture that I am talking about and it involves both the police and the public. And this is not to speak ill of Police officers, there are plenty of good police officers.

You are a bit dim aren't you! The right to silence is in American law, in the UK it is worded differently and isn't described as a "right". The caution states, "you do not have to say anything". That's your choice and you've either done it or haven't so whether you choose to give an account is entirely up to you. If you don't say anything then go to court and start putting up a defence then the court quite rightly will ask why you are doing that now! If you suffer adverse consequences then that is your own fault because if you are guilty then tough shit you deserve to be found guilty whatever your bloody rights are and if you are innocent then it is in your interests to tell the police of your innocence and the likely outcome will be that this will be able to be proven to be the case and you won't get charged. God you are f***ing stupid.

 

[Poyetry In Motion]

Why can you just say 'No coment' ?

That's pretty much all Roy Whiting said....

 

[dingodan]

You are a bit dim aren't you! The right to silence is in American law, in the UK it is worded differently and isn't described as a "right". The caution states, "you do not have to say anything". That's your choice and you've either done it or haven't so whether you choose to give an account is entirely up to you. If you don't say anything then go to court and start putting up a defence then the court quite rightly will ask why you are doing that now! If you suffer adverse consequences then that is your own fault because if you are guilty then tough shit you deserve to be found guilty whatever your bloody rights are and if you are innocent then it is in your interests to tell the police of your innocence and the likely outcome will be that this will be able to be proven to be the case and you won't get charged. God you are f***ing stupid.

Right to silence in England and Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Anyone else open this thread expecting it to be about the WSU?

 

[The Fifth Column]

Right to silence in England and Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you actually read that? I suspect not. It is not called or referred to in uk law as the right to remain silent, it is quite specific in saying that "you do not have to say anything". It's a moot point, if you want to refer to it in its american terms that's fine it is pretty much the same thing albeit with some subtle differences to American law. It doesn't change the fact that your understanding of the law is flawed and ignorant.

 

[dingodan]

Have you actually read that? I suspect not. It is not called or referred to in uk law as the right to remain silent, it is quite specific in saying that "you do not have to say anything". It's a moot point, if you want to refer to it in its american terms that's fine it is pretty much the same thing albeit with some subtle differences to American law. It doesn't change the fact that your understanding of the law is flawed and ignorant.

y so hateful?

 

[grummitts gloves]

Interviewing officers give disclosure to the suspects solicitor prior to interview of the suspect. It basically outlines the type of questions the interviewing officers are going to ask. The suspect basically then has 3 choices. Answer the questions on tape, say nothing as is their right, or submit a prepared written statement which can be read out during the interview by the solicitor or the Interviewing officer/s whilst the suspect still remains silent. Seems like a pretty level playing field to me.