Talk:Right to silence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a wikiproject dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

"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)

1 Merge self-incrimination
2 Merge Taking the fifth
3 England and Wales
4 Common law/Civil Law
5 additional use for right to silence

[edit] 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 time 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)

[edit] Merge Taking the fifth

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)