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?

Consider if a dependent had a low IQ. They may not fully understand the questions, so give incriminating but wrong answers.

The prosecution has to proved beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise you might as well lock up anyone.

This is not in particular to that specific case. In general terms.

You’re looking at it the wrong way.

You are assuming that not taking the stand means that the defendant is being “excused” from a duty or being given a free pass. But the defendant doesn’t have to do anything. They are presumed innocent. The prosecution has to do all the work in proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty.

How can a presumed innocent person have committed a crime just because they elect not to defend themselves but rather let the evidence speak for itself? That doesn’t make sense.

A cross-examination is no walk in the park. Those people spend years training and perfecting the skill. It’s designed to trip the person up, using language and question formats that confuse people. It’s possible that in this case the defense lawyer recommended that the defendant not speak.

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

Consider if a dependent had a low IQ. They may not fully understand the questions, so give incriminating but wrong answers.

The prosecution has to proved beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise you might as well lock up anyone.

This is not in particular to that specific case. In general terms.

Yes, I agree with this.

Of course they shouldn't be compelled to speak in their own defence and how exactly would you compel them to do so? The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defence.

Much like the 'no comment' responses in Police interviews, as infuriating as they may be, the person being interviewed has the right not to answer the questions put to them, the onus is on those investigating the crime to find the evidence of that person committing the crime not on the person suspected of the crime doing their work for them.

Juries can and do judge defendants in both those scenarios.

[quote Curly3456]@Georgeskitchen Yes, both defendents were highly educated[/quote]
Doesn't mean they're not stupid though. I know private school kids who did fine in school but are as thick as two short planks when it comes to social situations or commons else. They wouldn't have the personality to win over a jury or the intelligence not to say something stupid.

*common sense

The right to silence and the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt (rather than on the defendant to prove their innocence) are connected and a very necessary cornerstone of our criminal justice system. YABU.

It is a fundamental principle of justice. In practical terms if it was abolished, all someone would say is 'I decline to answer' or some form of evasive response. Or claim they were too ill to be in the dock and so justice would be delayed.

@speakout

How will you impose such a rule?

If they choose to remain silent then the jury should be able to draw negative conclusions from their silence.

YABVVU

It’s for the state to prove guilt. No one has to prove their innocence.

@bellac11

Would you poke them with a stick OP?

A VERY pointy one.

It's the Prosecutions job to demonstrate that the accused committed the crime beyond all reasonable doubt.

The defendent doesn't need to speak publicly for that. The evidence gathered (including statements or previous words spoken by the accused) should either be sufficient enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt (guilty) or insufficient (not guilty).

@Viviennemary

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

That is a very worrying position to take. There should be enough evidence supplied by the police to convict without relying on the accused to self-incriminate.

@Viviennemary

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

So the prosecution doesn't even have to have a case any more, the accused just needs to be too afraid to speak and they'll automatically be found guilty. Does that sound like a fair justice system to you?

@PotteringAlong

How do you propose to make people speak?

Tickle machine

There are SO many reasons why you cannot force defendents to speak. You are talking about putting potentially uneducated, highly vulnerable people on a stand and insisting they, even when innocent, are ripped to shreds by a barrister whose whole job would be to exploit their weaknesses and judged by a jury not on the evidence but on how well they come across as people, leading to immense bias. It's just bloody nasty.

You could make it a contempt of court and in itself carry a custodial sentence

Look at the case of Louise Woodward. She did take the stand, when she didn't have to. The evidence against her wasn't strong and would never hold up today. She was tripped up and tongue tied by lawyers over points of language and a big factor in the jury's decision to convict her OF MURDER was that they found her cold and didn't like her. Her conviction was overturned.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove a defendant guilty, not on the defence to establish their innocence. We start from a presumption of innocence which has to be overturned.

@maddening

You could make it a contempt of court and in itself carry a custodial sentence

Again, why? It is not my job to prove that I am innocent. It is the prosecution's job to prove that I am guilty.

@maddening

You could make it a contempt of court and in itself carry a custodial sentence

I’d imagine in these circumstances solicitors would simply instruct their clients to answer “I do not remember” or “I can’t say for sure” to all questions. Do we then also jail defendants who genuinely cannot remember or say for sure? If so, we’ll just have to accept an awful lot of made up answers from defendants desperate not to be jailed simply because they can’t remember.

@maddening

You could make it a contempt of court and in itself carry a custodial sentence

Where were you on the 3 of August 1999?

If the presumption is that they are innocent until proven guilty and that it's for the Crown to prove the case, why should they be forced to potentially incriminate themselves?

If they choose to give evidence then they must answer questions.

@Curly3456

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

That’s utterly ridiculous and would be unworkable.

Justice doesn't mean "get a conviction"

Justice = "make sure we can believe this conviction is justified"

That's where the "Innocent until proven guilty" principle comes from.

Chinese justice is great. They execute people all the time for terrible crimes. I wonder how many of the executed were actually guilty.