Talk:Right to silence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right to silence is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class 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)

Contents

[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)


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)

[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)

[edit] additional use for right to silence

people who are forced to go to the councilers also enjoy right of silence =)

[edit] 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:

  1. Intro - general philosophical motivation/ comparative law (US v UK is v important)
  2. Right to remain silent under police investiation
    1. US - main article Miranda warning
    2. UK - main article ...
  3. Privilege against self-incrimination in court
    1. US - ...
    2. UK - ...

Discuss. Cutler 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)