Why should you have the right to remain silent?
-
- Footman of the Imperium
- Posts: 3036
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
Why should you have the right to remain silent?
I'm intrigued, why is it that people should have the right to say nothing to anyone in response to an alleged wrongdoing? What purpose does such a right serve? Surely if someone does not want to speak because they feel they may incriminate themselves they've probably done something wrong.
- AtemHutlrt
- Bulldrekker
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:27 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
The right to silence, and the legal protection against self-incrimination, exist primarily as checks against abusive interrogation. Traditionally this may have meant torture, but now mostly involves coercion by complex lying. The right to silence [distinct from, though intrinsically linked to, the protection against self-incrimination] also exists as a function of the right to counsel: an individual is under no obligation to make any statements to law enforcement on his own behalf, because he has the right to employ a counselor, trained to navigate the vagaries of interrogation, to serve as representative.
The sun shines in my bedroom
when you play;
and the rain it always starts
when you go away
when you play;
and the rain it always starts
when you go away
-
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
- Location: Hawai'i
- Contact:
I think there are two angles to it - rights and, for lack of a better term, practicality.
We started off the assumption that the individual is pretty well sacrosanct in America. To prevent the State from locking people up for bad reasons like political dissent, the onus is placed on law enforcement to prove that you need and deserve to be locked up. Giving the individual rights means that the accused is not required to help the State lock him or her away.
The "practical" argument* is that being arrested is a stressful experience for the average person. You might accidentally say something that could be interpreted as a confession, even if you're innocent. The right to remain silent allows you to cool down and discuss your legal avenues with a lawyer. Even if you're innocent, you should probably find out the right way to present your defense before you start saying anything to the police.
*I just know I'm going to remember the right word for this on the way to work. Irritating.
We started off the assumption that the individual is pretty well sacrosanct in America. To prevent the State from locking people up for bad reasons like political dissent, the onus is placed on law enforcement to prove that you need and deserve to be locked up. Giving the individual rights means that the accused is not required to help the State lock him or her away.
The "practical" argument* is that being arrested is a stressful experience for the average person. You might accidentally say something that could be interpreted as a confession, even if you're innocent. The right to remain silent allows you to cool down and discuss your legal avenues with a lawyer. Even if you're innocent, you should probably find out the right way to present your defense before you start saying anything to the police.
*I just know I'm going to remember the right word for this on the way to work. Irritating.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
- Salvation122
- Grand Marshall of the Imperium
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Primarily, it exists because of this.
Even if you are entirely innocent, it's easy to misspeak and get screwed.
Even if you are entirely innocent, it's easy to misspeak and get screwed.
I was going to post my own summation, but as it turns out, nothing I was going to say wasn't already on Wikipedia, better-cited than I'd have done at any rate.