2 ms·
I like the UK method [1] more. You can be silent if you like but if you want to claim you were just going on a "jog" and not "running away from somebody you mur
by lesuorac 3y ago
I like the UK method [1] more. You can be silent if you like but if you want to claim you were just going on a "jog" and not "running away from somebody you murdered" you better make that claim now.
[1]: 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...
- lylejantzi3rd 3y agoDo you know if Australia has a similar method?
- lesuorac 3y agoNeither an australian nor a lawyer but it looks like they don't [1] and instead are similar to the US. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_Australia
- mardifoufs 3y agoNo that's horrible actually. It is almost always worse for the accused, and better for the police. If you talk, they win and if you don't you lose. I'm Canadian so it's not like this (not talking to the cops being the better option) is unique to the US.
- lesuorac 3y agoIt's better for getting to the truth in a timely manor. Its basically civil discovery except for a criminal matter. Good luck in a civil case bringing up some evidence at the 11th hour when its obvious to the other side you had that evidence from the start. Also, you don't have to talk in the UK just like the US. You still have the right to be silent.