Talk:Right to silence/Archive 1

the rights of sus
"This prohibition is extended to the suspect's spouse and members of his close family, unless neither the prosecution nor the defense counsel oppose it."

What does this mean? To me, it seems that the right is extended only if neither side opposes it. That is non-sensical. Logic tells me that the neither/nor should be changed to either/or but since I know little on the subject, I am loathe to change it myself. --Vik Reykja 08:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Is the current sentence clearer? Basically, the prosecution and the defense may agree that a relative can be validly interrogated under oath. David.Monniaux 12:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Merge self-incrimination
Shouldn't this article be merged with Self-incrimination? --JW1805 19:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a tricky question. I've just finished writing an essay on the right, and I used the terms interchangably. However, there is a technical distinction which may have largely been lost and changed over sus and in different common law jurisdictions. The privilege against self-incrimination technically only refers to the ability of witnesses to remain silent at trial while the right to silence more broadly encompasses pre-trial and other statements. The relevance of the distinction in modern discourse is open to debate, so I think a merger might be useful. I'm from Australia, though, and I don't know if this is the same in the US. Psychobabble 06:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

==making sus ==

I think there is a lot of redundancy in this area of law, and at the very least some consolidation can occur. Manney 20:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think taking the 5th should be merged with the 5th amendment page, rather than this one. Psychobabble 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are right, and have adjusted it accordingly Manney 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger etc
Right to silence is not a term of art. The head of this article says "... police interrogation or trial" so immediately covers two distinct, though philosophically related, areas of law. We have another article on the privilege against self-incrimination, though the title of that article might lead you to believe that it was about a wider topic. We also have the arcticle about the specific US law on Miranda warning which, bizarely, has a lot of non-US detail hidden within it. Further, the UK version of "reading your rights" is technically, and unhelpfully, known as the "caution" and is not mentioned in that dab page though it does mention police caution which is something completely different. A general readed searching for info would not be helped, especially if non-US.

What I suggest is that this article embraces the overall philosophical and legal concepts of (1) the right to remain silent under police investiation, and its consquences, and (2) the privilege against self-incrimination while on trial. I think that I would be tempted to merge the general parts of self-incrimination here and then create a new page for specific US stuff. This page would also then incorporate the current international section of Miranda warning which would become a wholly US article (it has to be with that title). The danger of the two articles is that the reader, looking for something about which they mat have only a vagues idea, will be led to the wrong one and get stuck.

This article then looks like: Discuss. Cutler 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Intro - general philosophical motivation/ comparative law (US v UK is v important)
 * 2) Right to remain silent under police investiation
 * 3) US - main article Miranda warning
 * 4) UK - main article ...
 * 5) Privilege against self-incrimination in court
 * 6) US - ...
 * 7) UK - ...

I agree (although when the international parts of the Mirander Warning page is incorporated, I suggest that a summary of the US position is also included on this page). I also suggest adverse inference is merged with this page.Dubitante 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

England and Wales
Does someone want to spin that sub section off into a separate page? It just seems to me that the discussion on the English position takes up too much of this page. The US discussion fits nicely into the 5th amendment page, but I don't know what the page for England/Wales would be, maybe Right to Silence in England and Wales? Psychobabble 06:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Done and extra information on the page Right to Silence in England and Wales about the current position has been added (and the existing text tidied up).Dubitante 17:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right to Silence is always active
The right to silence may always be active in the USA, but this is addressing the idea of a right to remain silent and not simply the laws of the USA. That is probably why it mentions that it usually starts upon arrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subjugator (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

US before Worldwide?
Since when did Wikipedia become mainly about the US? US has its own section, then everyother country under Worldwide, how pathetic - America is part of Worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.247.97 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the US with "worldwide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.43.242 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

UCMJ
Thanks for adding the point about the military. That is an important difference that a lot of people do not understand. Because military personnel are required to follow orders, and in an investigation can be ordered to testify (among other reasons) the right to remain silent does not exist for military personnel. Good addition to the discussion! I did correct it to reference specifically article 31, UCMJ which is the military corollary to Miranda Themoodyblue (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

History Sources?
Thank you to those who put together the history section. It seems particularly well put-together. However, despite including some direct quotes, it does appear to be completely devoid of any sources. It'd be great if whoever put it together could try to back track and include where they got all that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glippy00 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Greece
Not listed. I have a feeling there is no equivalent of the right to silence in Greece. Can someone provide any information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.127.252.195 (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Common law/Civil Law
This article states: "Some proponents of inquisitorial justice argue. . ." Which proponents? Or is this the editor's opinion? This needs to be cited or removed, or modified. 70.114.32.133 12:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This article states: "In most civil law jurisdictions where inquisitorial type procedures are established, the defendant may be compelled to make a statement, but this statement is not conducted under oath and the defendant is not subject to cross-examination by the prosecutor."

I don't know any modern civil law country which has no right to silence, even if this right come from the tradition of the common law. 134.93.204.100 12:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks suspect to me, too. I'm deleting the section wholesale. There is a discussion that could be made there, relating to the traditional difference between the right in adversarial/inquisitorial systems and how that difference has been eroded by, among other things, enshrinement of the right in international human rights treaties, but I have neither the time nor the citations (anymore) to write it. It's gone. Psychobabble 22:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check the law of criminal procedure in Greece, which mainly derives from Bavarian law. I have a memory of reading that an accused can be compelled to respond to questions from a prosecutor and has to make a written response to charges as part of the ensuing process.199.127.252.195 (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory claims in US section
According to the article, "Law enforcement officials do not have to tell civilians the truth on any subject. They can make any promises and claims they like in order to induce a person to incriminate herself or himself or to allow the officer to perform a search, and law enforcement officials are not bound by anything they promise to suspects or witnesses (i.e. promises of aid or protection)". This claim is cited from Rivera vs State of Rhode Island, http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/04-1568-01A.pdf. Now, I can't find anything in the article that directly supports that claim, but I'm AGF and assuming it's there. However, the Straight Dope article here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2842/what-can-the-police-lie-about-while-conducting-an-interrogation claims that extrinsic lies (lies not related to the facts of the case) can be cause for the invalidation of a confession. For instance, it gives the examples "1. Assurances of divine salvation upon confession." or "2. Promises of mental health treatment in exchange for a confession." as potentially extrinsic lies or fabrications, for the purposes of the invalidation of a conviction. I am not asking for legal advice, I'm just wondering if the above quote from our article is really correct. The Straight Dope article appears very well sourced, so if someone has legal record access and the time and inclination to sort through the stuff, perhaps they could check to see who's right? Alternatively, if an expert comes by and says "yes, I deal with this type of law on a regular basis, it works ", that would be good too. 68.190.231.128 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nemo tenetur se detegere
the page Nemo tenetur se detegere redirects to this page, but that Latin is not offered in translation. I would translate it but it would incriminate me on the charge of "pretending to know Latin". 108.14.121.107 (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Right to silence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070205232656/http://www.vlex.us:80/caselaw/U-S-Supreme-Court/Bram-v-United-States-168-U-S-532-1897/2100-20060675,01.html to http://www.vlex.us/caselaw/U-S-Supreme-Court/Bram-v-United-States-168-U-S-532-1897/2100-20060675%2C01.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016051149/http://www.jsboard.co.uk/criminal_law/cbb/index.htm to http://www.jsboard.co.uk/criminal_law/cbb/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Right to silence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/codes_traduits/cppsomA.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617132725/http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/ to http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117002512/http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information about Australia in the History section
The History section states that "...Commonwealth nations like Australia and New Zealand, where police officers are still required at common law to issue "Miranda-style" warnings..." This is not true, in Australia the police don't have to give any such warnings or read any rights. In Australia it is considered that every person has a responsibility to know the law, and thus doesn't need to be informed of it by the police, and that lack of knowledge of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.92.222 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh
Article 33 of the Constitution of Bangladesh compels arresting authorities to inform the accused of the accusations brought against him before he is detained if he is male

According to the citation, there is nothing mentioning an exception based on gender. Where is that coming from?

I am new to editing content, please excuse my shortcomings.

Amexboy (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

India: What all nonsense!
QUOTE: The Constitution of India guarantees every person right against self incrimination under Article 20 (3) END OF QUOTE

In India only government officials can claim this right and get away with it. Recently one IAS officer of a southern state claimed this right.

However, for the common man this right is invalid. He or she will be beaten to pulp and addressed and referred to in the pejoratives by the police, and other government staff with uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.46.143.134 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)