AIBU to think defendents should not have right to remain silent in court?

[Curly3456]

I have just finished watching "Killed by a rich kid" (documentary on Channel 4).
One of the boys accused of killing Yousef chose not to be questioned in court.

The two boys charged with Yousef's murder were found not guilty. Yousef's family were left feeling justice had not been done.

I can't help feeling that people accused of a crime shouldn't be able to opt out of being questioned in court?

How will you impose such a rule?

But you can't actually force them to say anything so even if they are made to stand there and be questioned, they do still have the right to remain silent. Seems like a pointless thing to do if they are clear that they won't be answering.

You can’t force someone to answer questions in court.

I can’t see how this would help.

How do you propose to make people speak?

YABVU.

The law allows for inferences to be drawn if the defendant remains silent in court. The judge may direct the jury to consider the fact that the defendant hasn't said anything in their defence may be because they have nothing to say which will stand up to cross examination.

Not sure how you'll force defendants to speak? The onus of proof is with prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to prove innocence.

How would you force them?

I understand what you mean but you can't force someone to speak without resorting to torture and that is (rightly) illegal.

Some defendants are inarticulate and poorly educated. Speaking in court against a clever lawyer could give a wrong impression so they prefer to let the evidence speak.

You can't force someone to speak, but refusal to answer questions could be an offence itself with possible legal consequences.

@BlusteryLake

Some defendants are inarticulate and poorly educated. Speaking in court against a clever lawyer could give a wrong impression so they prefer to let the evidence speak.

This is a good point. Thank you for making it.

Refusal to speak can have consequences for the defendant. ( ^^See my earlier post)

It's called an 'adverse inference' OP.

@Curly3456

I have just finished watching "Killed by a rich kid" (documentary on Channel 4). One of the boys accused of killing Yousef chose not to be questioned in court.

The two boys charged with Yousef's murder were found not guilty. Yousef's family were left feeling justice had not been done.

I can't help feeling that people accused of a crime shouldn't be able to opt out of being questioned in court?

The accused is just that. The individual is presumed to be innocent of the crime.

The trial is there to give the State the oppertunity to provide sufficient evidence to prove beond reasonable doubt that a crime took place and that the person accused is the person who carried out the crime.

If the evidence will not suffice why should the State be allowed to force an individual to collaborate in their own prosecution?

@IDoAllMyOwnStunts

It's called an 'adverse inference' OP.

Thank you!

@BlusteryLake

Some defendants are inarticulate and poorly educated. Speaking in court against a clever lawyer could give a wrong impression so they prefer to let the evidence speak.

They were educated grammar school pupils

Pretty cowardly for him not to give his version of events in court though considering his friend had died

@Momicrone

Pretty cowardly for him not to give his version of events in court though considering his friend had died

Agreed.

@Georgeskitchen Yes, both defendents were highly educated

Some people just come across as unlikeable. Or regardless of their educational background would go to pieces on the stand.

I agree. If they refuse to speak then it should be an automatic guilty verdict by default.

@PurpleDaisies

Some people just come across as unlikeable. Or regardless of their educational background would go to pieces on the stand.

Yes agreed. I think you have all persuaded me why we have the right to remain silent.

It's hard not to feel from the documentary that the defendent who didn't give evidence seemed to get off lightly.

@Viviennemary

I agree. If they refuse to speak then it should be an automatic guilty verdict by default.

That would be obscene and lead to many miscarriages of justice. There’s a reason why right to silence is enshrined in most of the world’s legal systems.

Would you poke them with a stick OP?

@Viviennemary

I agree. If they refuse to speak then it should be an automatic guilty verdict by default.

The English justice system presumes innocence and the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defendant to exonerate themselves.

There are plenty of countries where this is the other way around, and they aren’t generally held up as bastions of human rights and fair justice. Funnily enough, the people who hold views like yours never seem in a hurry to emigrate there to live under the auspices they think correct.