We have an ongoing murder investigation in the UK, two young girls were killed. The suspect has apparently spoken not a word since his arrest a week ago, and rather than being charged hes been remanded to a psychiatric secure unit for appraisal to see whether hes fit to stand trial.
It got me to thinking, how does the law, both in the US and the UK, cope with such behaviour from a suspect? Suppose he were to remain silent, not speak again, how could the psychiatrists decide whether he was sane, since surely it is responses to various questions that enable them to appraise somebody.
BTW as the last person to see them alive, and being the school caretaker, the guy was giving TV interviews before he was suspected, in which his behaviour appeared perfectly normal.
Now here’s a real can of worms. The whole notion of responsibility and forensic insanity is a philosophical quagmire, any answer you come up with will be at least as religious as rational. Psychiatrists are more high priests than scientists. ‘Equus’ is a good dramatic treatment of the question.
In the United States at least, the court would appoint him an attorney. If he refused to speak, the attorney would speak on his behalf, although not necessarily effectively (since he was giving interviews where he appeared normal before the arrest this seems to indicate that he’s sane).
I don’t see how staying silent would help. The presumption is that you’re legally sane unless proven otherwise, and merely staying quiet does nothing to prove you are legally insane in the context that’s relevant here. (Roughly, that you were “able to tell right from wrong” at the time of the crime.)
Yeah, but pleading insanity almost never works. As well, it’s fairly easy to determine from past behavior whether the guy is competant to stand trial, no matter what act he pulls after his bust. Shrinks, who’ve dealt with such dodges for many years (assuming we’re talking court-appointed shrinks, here) would know better than the faker what the earmarks of “insanity” (which isn’t any recognized condition among among the mental health community, by the by) are. It’s very difficult to keep up a facade such as this, and simply keeping quiet won’t prove anything. I’d suspect that you’d be held in contempt, if you attempted to pull this in court.
Interesting question. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a defendant being cited for contempt for remaining silent; if a judge did so, I’d think the defendant’s attorney would have a good case for a violation of his client’s rights. I wouldn’t think it would do much good for the defendant’s case, though.
Defendents have a “right to remain silent”. It’s up the prosecution to prove its case, the defendent doesn’t have to say a single word.
In the U.S, suspects are read the “Miranda” warning, which states, in part, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, and that they have the right to remain silent. If they are in the middle of questioning, they can choose to stop answering at any time.
In court, they can’t be compelled to testify against themselves.
So the accused don’t HAVE to talk at all. When they are arraigned and asked to what to plead (guilty, not guilty, no contest) and refuse to answer, I suppose there will be a stumbling block right there. But as I wrote earlier, a court appointed attorney could plead not guilty on the defendent’s behalf.
I’m not a lawyer, for which I am grateful to whatever brought this state of affairs about, but I believe in the U.S. at least that a defendants right is to not give incriminating testimony. Refusal to identify yourself for example, or speak at all if you were capable would be contempt. Certainly a witness can be obliged to testify if the matter is not of his own guilt unless he has a relationship of legally recognized confidence with the accused. There is no blanket right to be silent before a court.
I just asked my aunt about this. (She was a lawyer in the DA’s office for years & now works for the State). Your Miranda Rights give you the right not to speak to the police with out an attorney present & incriminate your self. They do not give you the right to not answer a question directed to you by the court (judge). You could & probably would be held in contempt.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was thinking along the lines of little*bit’s example, as in refusing to acknowledge the judge or other officer of the court, when you are obliged to do so in order to allow the court proceedings to continue.
[hijack]
I don’t want to be a jerk about this, but I’m really curious – why are you using an accent grave instead of an apostrophe? The apostrophe is down there next to the “return” key.
Thanks, acsenray. After using the computer for a couple of years now, visiting boards galore, you`re the first one to point it out to me. I’m sticking to Dr Johnson’s excuse, “Sheer ignorance!”
Er, I don’t mean to sound clueless, but what is the difference between pleading Guilty and pleading No Contest?
In the UK the standard police caution states that if you reamain silent with material information and then rely upon that same information as part of your defence it can be noted by the prosecution and any subsequent jury.
In other words if you are asked something like, “What were you doing at X time”? and you make no reply and then sometime later suddenly come up with an explanation which you could reasonably have been expected to make at the time of questioning, then it may be taken and used as circimstantial evidence that you were trying to cover something up, and it could undermine the credibilty of an alibi witness if you magically came up with one some time after questioning.
I’m not sure… but I think that No Contest isn’t used in American courts… or something like that. I think it might mean something like, “I’m not saying I’m guilty but I’m accepting the charges”… sort of a face saving maneuver.
Just to clarify, that’s if they’re in the middle of police questioning or other similar questioning that isn’t under oath. As soon as they testify in court, they waive their 5th amendment rights with regards to the specific matter they are testifying too. CEO Ebbers of WorldCom fame was in some hot water over this issue because while testifying before Congress he made a statement under oath and then refused to answer questions about it- illegal under current interpretation of the law.
This makes sense, too, or else you could see things like this:
Q: Do you know who killed John Doe?
A: Cecil Adams
Q: Is that a lie?
A: I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me [for perjury]. Just doesn’t work that way.
Yet another reason why it’s usually smartest to shut up and wait for a good lawyer to tell you what to do.
I’ve heard No Contest used in court cases, but I don’t really see what the point is, except if you can’t remember whether you did the act (alcoholic or medical-related blackouts, amnesia, etc.) but all the evidence indicates you did .
For the current legal proceedings there is no difference between a Guilty plea and a No Contest plea.
The difference comes into play if the results of those proceedings are ever appealed. A Guilty plea in a lower court reduces your options on appeal. You can’t claim innocence, for example, unless you can somehow show that your earlier guilty plea was coerced. If you had pled No Contest in the lower court, you can claim under appeal that you were really innocent, if that has bearing on the type of appeal you are persuing.
Ed
(I’m sorry… I just have to say this)
The most recorded case of silence before a Judge was Jesus Christ before Pilot. Look where that got him. 