RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty

RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 9:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Personally, I think the use of truth serum, hypnosis, and prolonged sexual arousal should be used to gain a confession in the case of murder, manslaughter, rape, child molestation, child or spousal abuse, AND lieing to the voters during an election campaign. If no one figures out the tone I used in this.... We really need a sarcasm font Moderators are you listening?

DomKen -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 2:42:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I'm talking about principles, not about a one-sided retelling of one particular case. Let me ask you a yes or no question. Let's keep it simple. Should police be allowed truthfully to testify in criminal trials concerning their observations? Not about emotional reactions or anything of the like.

DomKen -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 2:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 FR~ As someone who is neither an American nor lives in the US, I don't see the point in the 5th. A genuine person that hasn't committed any crime has no reason to lie to police and by default, any testimony wouldn't be self-incriminating. But, if they decide to plead the 5th, one can only assume you have something to hide with regard to the case you are being questioned about. So in essence, by pleading the 5th you must be guilty of something otherwise why hide behind it?? There is no sane or logical reason why anyone would need to hide behind the 5th if they had nothing to hide in the first place. So yes, if you exercise your right to remain silent, that implies guilt to me. The only thing missing is the details. You're conflating things, a little bit and since you're not from here, let me help. The "right to remain silent" is a Miranda right (Miranda Vs. Arizona 1960-something). The fifth amendment right is for when one is actually in court, under oath. When being questioned by police, you are not under oath. If you lie in court, the charge is perjury. If you lie while being questioned by police, the charge is not perjury because you've never been sworn in. Your right to remain silent *only* pertains to police questioning and will do you no good in court (you'll probably be found in contempt). Michael The "Miranda right" to be silent during questioning is the fifth amendment right.

egern -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 4:39:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Are you saying that the behavior of a suspect being questioned by police should not be related to the jury by those same officers??? ROFL And if you're not saying that, what exactly are you saying? If you are addressing me, I am not sure, not being very up on the US constitution, but it seems to me to undermine 'innocent until proven guilty'.

egern -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 4:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The jury is free to give whatever weight to the behavior of a suspect they want. The police are free (truthfully) to describe that behavior. Are you saying they have to hide the behavior of the suspect? That they cannot truthfully say: "I asked Mr Jones if he killed his wife. He became highly agitated, screamed, banged his head against the table, began to cry, invoked his fifth amendment rights, and asked for his attorney"? Let's imagine for a moment that the suspect is in fact innocent. He has just lost his wife, and on top of that shock he is accused of murdering her, and two detectives are sitting there pestering him, and finally he breaks to pieces or has had it with them. Yes, I can imagine an innocent person behaving like that, and behavior is not proof of anything. It will be interpreted according to what you think, totally subjectively.

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 4:57:42 AM)
Unless the right to remain silent is radically different in America to Britain that of course silence can be evidence of guilt. You have the right to remain silent. That means you don't have to say anything and can't be forced to do so. Equally if you have been cautioned and remain silent then a jury or judge can infer, from your silence, guilt. I don't see how this man's rights were infringed. He wished to remain silent, he did, and was subsequently found guilty in part because of it. I appreciate it may be different in America but considering how closely our laws dovetail I would be surprised if it differed that much. The right to remain silent is not some panacea that you can appy to just stop talking when things look bad and somehow get off scot free. It is just that...you don't have to speak. That silence can be interpreted just as much as any verbal or visual cues you give. Your silence is just as much of an answer and so subject to scrutiny.

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 5:00:02 AM)
''Yes, I can imagine an innocent person behaving like that, and behavior is not proof of anything'' Behavior can be proof of all sort of things whether of guilt or innocence. If the reason he remained silent is because of the emotions you outlined Egern that is soemthing for the suspect and his lawyer to make clear. No different to any other ambiguous answer given after caution.

vincentML -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 5:11:02 AM)
quote: I think the escalating war on the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights should be of great concern to every American. Your concern would be credible if there were not a well known lengthy history of abuse by police during interrogations.

Raiikun -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 5:27:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 FR~ As someone who is neither an American nor lives in the US, I don't see the point in the 5th. A genuine person that hasn't committed any crime has no reason to lie to police and by default, any testimony wouldn't be self-incriminating. But, if they decide to plead the 5th, one can only assume you have something to hide with regard to the case you are being questioned about. So in essence, by pleading the 5th you must be guilty of something otherwise why hide behind it?? There is no sane or logical reason why anyone would need to hide behind the 5th if they had nothing to hide in the first place. So yes, if you exercise your right to remain silent, that implies guilt to me. The only thing missing is the details. This would explain why the fifth amendment is so awesome, and why one should never talk to the police without legal counsel, even if innocent... www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

jlf1961 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 5:50:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Are you saying that the behavior of a suspect being questioned by police should not be related to the jury by those same officers??? ROFL And if you're not saying that, what exactly are you saying? If you are addressing me, I am not sure, not being very up on the US constitution, but it seems to me to undermine 'innocent until proven guilty'. Officially, you are innocent until proven guilty.... In reality it depends on which side of the guilty/innocent fence the news media falls on, if they decide you are guilty, you are screwed, unless you are O. J. or Casey Anthony

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 7:36:45 AM)
And defense attorneys are free to present all sorts of (often fraudulent) "experts" to testify that no one's behavior ever means anything; juries are then free to put theiir faith in those "experts". We saw how spectacularly well that works in the Anthony trial. To deny the police the opportunity to testify is stunningly, amazingly wrong.

DomKen -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 9:33:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 Unless the right to remain silent is radically different in America to Britain that of course silence can be evidence of guilt. You have the right to remain silent. That means you don't have to say anything and can't be forced to do so. Equally if you have been cautioned and remain silent then a jury or judge can infer, from your silence, guilt. I don't see how this man's rights were infringed. He wished to remain silent, he did, and was subsequently found guilty in part because of it. I appreciate it may be different in America but considering how closely our laws dovetail I would be surprised if it differed that much. The right to remain silent is not some panacea that you can appy to just stop talking when things look bad and somehow get off scot free. It is just that...you don't have to speak. That silence can be interpreted just as much as any verbal or visual cues you give. Your silence is just as much of an answer and so subject to scrutiny. In the US remaining silent and not answering police questions is not supposed to be even mentioned during the trial. The right against self incrimination is very broad.

DomKen -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 9:36:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 ''Yes, I can imagine an innocent person behaving like that, and behavior is not proof of anything'' Behavior can be proof of all sort of things whether of guilt or innocence. If the reason he remained silent is because of the emotions you outlined Egern that is soemthing for the suspect and his lawyer to make clear. No different to any other ambiguous answer given after caution. The only way the defense could bring in testimony about the behavior of the defendant is to have him testify. Doing so would waive his right against self incrimination and the prosecutor could ask him just about anything.

DomKen -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 9:37:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave And defense attorneys are free to present all sorts of (often fraudulent) "experts" to testify that no one's behavior ever means anything; juries are then free to put theiir faith in those "experts". We saw how spectacularly well that works in the Anthony trial. To deny the police the opportunity to testify is stunningly, amazingly wrong. The police should testify about objective facts not that the father of the dead children did not cry enough.

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 9:44:07 AM)
Well, that's one mans opinion. Fortunately that's all it is- opinion, not law

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 9:45:33 AM)
''In the US remaining silent and not answering police questions is not supposed to be even mentioned during the trial. The right against self incrimination is very broad'' How does that work DomKen? If you say nothing and are arrested then you are interviewed. If you continue to say nothing you're very likely to be charged and the interview becomes evidence in court. Just the same as any reply to caution is evidence including if that ''reply'' is silence. Questions before caution you're free to ignore without anything being inferred from your silence though you can still make significant statements...at least in Britain. The idea behind this is if you refuse to say anything up until court the jury can infer that you have used the time between now and court to make up a convincing story. I'm surprised that it's much different in America. ''The only way the defense could bring in testimony about the behavior of the defendant is to have him testify. Doing so would waive his right against self incrimination and the prosecutor could ask him just about anything.'' If the alternative is to be seen as guilty due to inferences drawn from previous silence that seems a reasonable alternative.

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 9:48:41 AM)
''The police should testify about objective facts not that the father of the dead children did not cry enough'' But that is evidence. Demeanour and behaviour can be very important facets of an investigation. There's also a difference betwen describing someone's behaviour and drawing conclusions from it. That should always be made clear in court. He didn't cry when I told him his wife had been brutally murdered but instead laughed. That's a description. I took this to mean that he wasn't grieved at the idea of his wife's death. Opinion. Both are valid in court but the distinguishing line needs to be very clear.

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 9:50:37 AM)
quote: How does that work Actually, that might change state by state. I have no doubt that all aspects of a police interview are fair game for courtroom testimony in most if not all states including the simple fact "When I asked Mr Jones if he killed his wife he invoked his fifth amendment rights and refused to answer".

mnottertail -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 9:54:02 AM)
http://www.mofo.com/files/Publication/b72e0c65-297f-455f-a9bb-6e0b63eb28c2/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/bd3bc6f0-6563-4f4b-a3f2-0c18189b5d98/04PLIDO.pdf Start reading at page two. It seems that the various courts, including circuit courts have held differing opinions on whether 'taking the 5th' is predjudicial in differing circumstances, and the SCOTUS being of a decided nutsucker bent, rolled it all into one and held that it can be considered prejudicial in all cases in all jurisdictions. (I know this legal brief is on another subject at its outset, but it covered the fifth with case law and precedents pretty well, up to this sad and inglorious moment in our history.)

DaddySatyr -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:16:51 AM)
This is just a general reply: The right to remain silent should be as invilable as possible without infringing upon legitimate concerns of the state. What do I mean? Well, like it or not, how people react to certain news or facts presented, during interrogation *can* be an indicator of guilt or innocense. Here's where I have an issue: If I'm arrested and I tell the police that I have no intention of saying anything to them, they are not barred from continuing to talk to me. They could say something that's *designed* to get a certain reaction and then, that could be used at trial. I have already expressed a desire to not communicate and this kind of tactic kind of "forces" communication out of me. Remember: communication need not be verbal. I believe that once a person has expressed a desire not to co-operate, ALL discussion should stop (except for the booking process, if the police decide to arrest). I don't think the police should: "Well, we just wanna let you know where you stand so, just listen ..." That's crap and the cops that do that should shampoo my crotch. Peace and comfort, Michael

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875