What sentence of mine are you specifically responding to?
I never said (or know, for that matter) how much of this silent or not silent thing affects the case. Based on the thread, it seems there’s a bit more nuance, but I don’t see too much difference between what I stated and what you seem to have taken upon yourself to correct. So in some cases your silence when initially confronted by the police can be mentioned by the prosecution in an attempt to prosecute you, that seems to be the gist of it. No need to get all snarky because I didn’t cite legal precedent. And 99% of the time I use British interchangeably with all of the UK or England in particular so excuse me if I sometimes say British instead of using the exact name of the local jurisdiction. Next you’ll be telling me Scotland Yard isn’t just in in Scotland!
American situation:
Cop: “You have the right to remain silent, etc… Do you understand these rights?”
Suspect: “Yes.”
Cop: “Well, you’re in a heap of trouble. I can help you if you talk now, but if you don’t tell me your side of the story, you’re facing a long term in prison.”
UK situation:
Cop: “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence, etc…”
Am I to understand that some people think the UK caution is manipulative and objectionable, but the American attempt at getting someone to talk is okay?
No. Not when initially confronted by the police, only when you have been cautioned and had chance to seek legal advice.
Moreover, this particular caution applies to England and Wales. The other jurisdictions have their own peculiar rules. So using “British” is inaccurate. The Scotland Yard analogy fails because that was the name of the location rather then jurisdiction.
And using British interchangeably with England is wrong as well. Gordon Brown (former PM) was British but not English. The Royal Navy nuclear deterrent is based in Britain, but not England ( it’s on Scotland).
what, the proof of corruption in the system is a legal case being brought and a parliamentary inquiry being set-up? and in any case, the Met is not equivalent to “English police forces”.
Oh I will tell you, they don’t…juries do.
name me any country on the face of the globe where individual incidents such as this do not happen. (and I notice you don’t actually cite any of them). It only becomes a problem if you claim that the such behaviour is endemic…
ooooo! which you just did. Fine then, give us the figures that shows there are “thousands of cases like this”, tell over what period, tell us how it compares to better systems around the world.
Beak: Thou scurrilous knave, on the morning of August 5th at 11 by the clock, you shall be taken from your cell to be removed to that place prescribed by law, to be pressed until you admit your guilt, at which time all your assets will be transferred to the Crown, thereby leaving your wife and children to starve in the street then arrested for begging, or you die under the press but your family keeps its hovel and single wooden plate.
The risk of having a jury draw adverse inferences doesn’t apply to keeping your mouth shut until you have a chance to talk to a solicitor. As I said right back in post #2, and as it says right there in the link I gave.
Nothing baseless about it. It’s a shitty way to word people’s alleged rights if you are telling them they may be harming themselves by not talking to police, possibly before getting counsel. And I am glad I don’t live in a medieval monarchy. Not that I truly think England is one other than the entire concept of the monarchy being rather dated and quaint.
No, on this point the US system is a superior (in the sense of more absolute) implementation of a particular point of principle. Whether it is actually a good idea to implement that point of principle so rigidly is a whole other question.
You’re still not getting it. <scratches head> I’m a little curious as to why the hostility.
The phrase begins, “You don’t have to say anything.” Period. Stop. You don’t have to say anything. Even if you are guilty. Even if you’re holding the gun or the bloody knife. You do not have to incriminate yourself.
In the quote above, you left out “when questioned.” “When questioned” refers to the time when the police sit you down and question you. At that time, you WILL have a solicitor sitting next to you. But you still don’t have to talk.
However, if you do MAKE THE CHOICE (and it is your choice) to talk, be sure and mention everything you remember at that time (when the police are questioning you with your solicitor present), because it might look fishy if you start bringing in important details later.
And the warning says, “It MAY harm your case,” not it WILL harm your case, or you’re screwed. It’s really a bit of free, common-sense advice, “You will hurt your own credibility with us, with the judge, with the jury if you tell us what you claim is the whole story now and then start pulling stuff out of your ass later. Do yourself a favor and spill all the beans at the time of questioning.”
I truly don’t see what the problem is. But it is fascinating to watch.
I’m not Rigamarole but at the start of this thread I was feeling similarly pugnacious about the attitude of the line because I did not know that “when questioned” refers to a very specific situation and not any time someone under the authority of the crown asks you a question from the time you’re handcuffed til the jury reads its verdict.
There is a whole area of evidence law in the US dedicated to this very point: it’s called the hearsay exception to an allegation of recent fabrication.
The posters who are criticising the English rule seem to be arguing that in the US, coming out with an alibi at a late stage of the proceedings can’t be impeached, because of the right to silence. However, US prosecutors can challenge a late statement as a recent fabrication, and then the accused may have to rely on prior consistent statements to rebut the allegation of recent fabrication.
American lawyer, now serving as a big-city magistrate, here.
I have no problem with the English/Welsh warning, as it seems a common-sense rule, but don’t think it would make much of a difference in many cases anyway. Alibi defenses are pretty rare, in my experience. In six years as a felony prosecutor, I don’t think I ever saw one raised, or even heard of one from colleagues in their cases.
Not that I truly think England is one other than the entire concept of the monarchy being rather dated and quaint.