Timeline for You have the right to remain silent, but why?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2022 at 20:59 | comment | added | Alexander The 1st | @supercat: They'd just work around that by not having suspects, just "Witnesses who conveniently happen to confess.". | |
| Oct 25, 2022 at 17:37 | comment | added | supercat | ...than proving motive, but if e.g. police were to respond to a court ruling saying that holding a suspect over 30 minutes was presumptively coercive by issuing a guide "How to convince suspects they have no choice but to confess, in 29 minutes or less", the motive should be clear enough as to render the question of means essentially moot. | |
| Oct 25, 2022 at 17:32 | comment | added | supercat | @AlexanderThe1st: I am puzzled as to the justification for allowing police to record an interview, destroy the tape without making it available to the defense, and still introduce anything that was done or said during the interview into evidence. On the other hand, I'm also puzzled by why courts seem unable to articulate the principle that any attempt to make a suspect believe that he has no choice but to confess to a crime, regardless of the means employed, is a willful violation of the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights. To be sure, proving overt actions is often easier... | |
| Oct 25, 2022 at 6:35 | comment | added | Alexander The 1st | @supercat: Compound the above with the fact that, in the United States, the police are allowed to lie to the public during interrogations or questioning, a fact that a lawyer present in your defense could point out during a questioning period as a witness.. | |
| Oct 25, 2022 at 6:31 | comment | added | Alexander The 1st | @supercat: The problem with requiring self-incriminating statements or convictions being video recorded (Which isn't to say that they shouldn't be recorded, just that there needs to be a caveat that doesn't always exist), is that the police could edit the recording down to just the confession or self incriminating statement - and not everything that led up to it. Marathon interrogations can be dangerous for that reason - which is why the U.S. allows you to demand a lawyer available. | |
| Aug 25, 2017 at 22:39 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @supercat Sure, that's possible. But anything you tell them, it's all but certain they won't have to prove to convict you. If you place yourself at the time and location of the crime, and you "immediately went to police to try to steer them away from you", you've made three-quarters of their case for them. LIterally the only additional thing they need is some inaccuracy in your story and they get a conviction because "why would an innocent person lie to police?". (I agree that what you're saying seems like common sense. But it's also very wrong.) | |
| Aug 25, 2017 at 22:27 | comment | added | supercat | @DavidSchwartz: If you don't tell them anything, you may luck out and have them not find you. But if they find you eventually without your assistance, you may be in a worse situation than if you had gone to them earlier. | |
| Aug 25, 2017 at 21:59 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @supercat It helps because they then have to prove every step of that trail. On the other hand, if you tell them you were there, then they don't have to prove that. Worse, if they find what they think is any discrepancy in your statements to them (in one famous example, due to another witness who was simply mistaken) your whole trial becomes, "Why would an innocent person lie?". | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 17:32 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | I wouldn’t quite say an innocent person can’t benefit from talking to the police. There are significant dangers in doing so (as mentioned in your video), which can be exacerbated by things like race, sex, age, socioeconomic status.... But to say that an innocent person cannot benefit is quite a broad statement indeed, which renders it inaccurate. The logical conclusion of your (broad) statement would be that no one should ever report a crime…which probably would be a bad thing. Of course, if you can afford a lawyer, it’s always best to have them do the talking.... | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 16:27 | comment | added | supercat | Incidentally, given the reduced cost of video recording, I'd like to see states require as a matter of policy that any supposed self-incriminating statements or "confessions" must be recorded, and that jurors be instructed that any claimed statements viewed with extreme skepticism in the absence of video evidence to back them up. | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 16:18 | comment | added | supercat | If the police would be able to eventually place you at the crime scene anyway, the only outcome that's likely to be good for you is going to be having the police catch the actual crook. Coming forward isn't going to cause 100% of the police efforts to be directed toward the correct suspect, but letting the police spend a couple weeks following an evidence trail that leads to you isn't likely to help. | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 16:01 | comment | added | alanf | You say you saw a crime being committed. You give details of the crime to the police. There are at least two ways you could have that information. (1) You saw somebody else do it. (2) You did it. The somebody else you mention isn't standing in front of the police right now giving them information about a criminal act. You are standing there. The police can arrest and prosecute you. And for all they know you did it. So why wouldn't they arrest and prosecute you? | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 15:25 | comment | added | supercat | There are times an innocent person can benefit from talking to the police. Someone who saw a crime committed, for example, may benefit from having police catch the person who actually committed it. | |
| Aug 24, 2017 at 14:41 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 24, 2017 at 14:47 | |||||
| Aug 24, 2017 at 14:37 | history | answered | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |