13 ms·

I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you. Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.

by whamlastxmas 9y ago

the-dude 9y ago
Citation needed.
- blibble 9y ago
  in the UK there are specific circumstances where adverse inferences may be made from silence, the police caution is: > You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. the wikipedia article goes into details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cortic 9y ago
  “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    If you listen to the video, the professor says that nothing you say to the US police can be used to defend you later. From your quote we see that this is not the case in the UK. Something you say can later be used in your defense, so clearly if you choose to say nothing -- you have less that could be used in your defense. > I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights. Compared to the US?
    - cortic 9y ago
      No, we have hearsay laws similar to the US. We can't compel an officer to testify on our behalf about something we said to them in questioning. its just in the UK, if you talk to the police, and forget something that is important you don't get to use it later, or its not as useful later. This has lead to a lot of unsound convictions of people who were intoxicated at the time of arrest; They tell some abridged version of their story to police, leaving half the important details out, leaving them with half a case to take to court. In Scotland they have started Requiring solicitors to be present at interviews of suspects (of some crimes) because of this, making statements inadmissible unless a solicitor was present.
floofyfloofer 9y ago
False, since 2013, when the Supreme Court held that remaining silent wasn't sufficient to invoke your right to remain silent. "suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk:" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
- rocqua 9y ago
  The particulars of that case matter though. In this case, the suspect had spoken to the police, and during this didn't respond to a certain question / responded to the question with silence. If I recall correctly, the court reasoned that by first speaking, he gave up his right to remain silent. Moreover, he responded by silence rather that actively asserting his right to remain silent. Not to say I agree with the ruling, especially because he was never mirandized. However, it is not clear cut that simply remaining silent isn't enough to assert your right against self-incrimination.
  - dvtv75 9y ago
    Many years ago, in New Zealand, the flatmate of a friend of mine told me much the same: if you're questioned by the police, you can't just stop talking and claim your right to silence. You gave that up by answering questions.

I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you. Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.

the-dude 9y ago

Citation needed.

blibble 9y ago
in the UK there are specific circumstances where adverse inferences may be made from silence, the police caution is: > You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. the wikipedia article goes into details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cortic 9y ago
“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.
- jopsen 9y ago
  If you listen to the video, the professor says that nothing you say to the US police can be used to defend you later. From your quote we see that this is not the case in the UK. Something you say can later be used in your defense, so clearly if you choose to say nothing -- you have less that could be used in your defense. > I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights. Compared to the US?
  - cortic 9y ago
    No, we have hearsay laws similar to the US. We can't compel an officer to testify on our behalf about something we said to them in questioning. its just in the UK, if you talk to the police, and forget something that is important you don't get to use it later, or its not as useful later. This has lead to a lot of unsound convictions of people who were intoxicated at the time of arrest; They tell some abridged version of their story to police, leaving half the important details out, leaving them with half a case to take to court. In Scotland they have started Requiring solicitors to be present at interviews of suspects (of some crimes) because of this, making statements inadmissible unless a solicitor was present.

floofyfloofer 9y ago

False, since 2013, when the Supreme Court held that remaining silent wasn't sufficient to invoke your right to remain silent. "suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk:" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

rocqua 9y ago
The particulars of that case matter though. In this case, the suspect had spoken to the police, and during this didn't respond to a certain question / responded to the question with silence. If I recall correctly, the court reasoned that by first speaking, he gave up his right to remain silent. Moreover, he responded by silence rather that actively asserting his right to remain silent. Not to say I agree with the ruling, especially because he was never mirandized. However, it is not clear cut that simply remaining silent isn't enough to assert your right against self-incrimination.
- dvtv75 9y ago
  Many years ago, in New Zealand, the flatmate of a friend of mine told me much the same: if you're questioned by the police, you can't just stop talking and claim your right to silence. You gave that up by answering questions.