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?

YABU. Haven’t you heard of innocent until proven guilty? The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant did it, not for the defendant to prove that they didn’t.

If DH and I were accused of the same crime which one of us do you think would do better in a witness box
Me - well educated British born lawyer with mother tongue English

DH - North African Muslim immigrant who grew up speaking Arabic and French

The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything or answer anything.

What you, OP, and one or two other posters, are advocating for here is that we completely reverse the whole basis of justice to one where the presumption is guilty until proven innocent, and that is the stuff of dystopian nightmares and totalitarian regimes.

@Viviennemary

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

Are you on glue?

@NannyKrampus exactly!! The mind truly boggles.

One of the worst ideas I've ever heard

You're being terribly unreasonable.

@Curly3456

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

YABVU.

@Viviennemary

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

Utterly nuts.

When I was 19 I witnessed a crime and was called to give evidence. The prosecution probably thought I'd be a good witness seeing as I was articulate in the police interviews and I was completely independent of either the accused or the victim so couldn't be biased.

I absolutely went to pieces on the stand. I was tripped up, accused of racism, told I had an ulterior motive, over elaborated in my answers rather than just sticking to answering the question. It is still up there as one of the worst experiences in my life. If someone wishes to remain silent and let the evidence speak for itself they should have that right.

Where were you on the 3 of August 1999?

@SolasAnla
I give in. What happened?

@Viviennemary

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

Christ, let's hope you're never on jury service.

@5foot5

Where were you on the 3 of August 1999?

@SolasAnla
I give in. What happened?

I presume that’s the point being made: the answer for most people will be “I can’t remember” - which for the purposes of wanting to make it a criminal offence for a defendant not to answer accurately when questioned, will eventually be taken as a refusal to answer, and therefore contempt of court.

5foot5

Where were you on the 3 of August 1999?

@SolasAnla
I give in. What happened?

I presume that’s the point being made: the answer for most people will be “I can’t remember” - which for the purposes of wanting to make it a criminal offence for a defendant not to answer accurately when questioned, will eventually be taken as a refusal to answer, and therefore contempt of court.

Oh I see! I thought she must be referencing a particularly memorable case. I have been googling "what happened on 3rd August 1999"

(Not much from what I could find)

I''ve been a witness in court, it was horrendous and though I wouldn't say I completely went to pieces I feel the prosecutor twisted what I said and gets you to a point where you start wondering exactly what you even know

Yabu

The onus has to be on the prosecution to prove the case because of innocent until proven guilty.

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

Jesus.

I could, if I felt so inclined, absolutely tie DP up in knots with questions and spurious assumptions and accusations to the point at which he'd either admit assassinating the Queen - even though she's not dead yet - or do himself in to make it all stop.

If your demands were met, you have singlehandedly ensured that any autistic person who had mutism in their symptoms is no longer able to access justice. You've ensured that people who have crippling anxiety are no longer to access justice. You've ensured that people with speech impediments such as stammering no longer have access to justice. You've ensured that people who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing or auditory processing disorders no longer have access to justice. You've ensured that a large number of poorly educated, lower than average cognitive ability, or are already traumatised aren't able to access justice. And, frankly, a large number of people who have accents associated with particular areas or ethnicities are going to be treated prejudicially as a result of your expectation that everybody should be able to stand up to the verbal parries of professional speakers and wordsmiths.

In addition, if the defendant is compelled to speak or they are deemed guilty, 'fairness' would dictate that victims would have to be compelled to speak or the defendant would automatically be found not guilty. Which means many cases would not proceed on the grounds of their fear, their inability to be cross examined, on their ethnicity/accent and disabilities.

There are no fair trials in those circumstances.

I agree NeverDropYourMoonCup, some posters on here, including the OP, seem to be of the opinion that once someone is charged with a crime they are automatically guilty of said crime, if that's the case then why bother with a Trial at all, just pack them off to jail, do not pass Go? I mean even under the current system it's not like there have never, ever, been any cases where defendants were 'fit up' for the crime, never any miscarriages of justice. Their version of 'Justice' makes my blood run cold, do they really want to live in a society without judicial safeguards, if so then I can recommend a few places they may like to move to.

The symbolism of the Lady Justice statue, some people on here need to think about it:

Balance Scales: These represent impartiality and the obligation of the law (through its representatives) to weigh the evidence presented to the court. Each side of a legal case needs to be looked at and comparisons made as justice is done.

Sword: This item symbolizes enforcement and respect, and means that justice stands by its decision and ruling, and is able to take action. The fact that the sword is unsheathed and very visible is a sign that justice is transparent and is not an implement of fear. A double-edged blade signifies that justice can rule against either of the parties once the evidence has been perused, and it is bound to enforce the ruling as well as protect or defend the innocent party.

Blindfold: This first appeared on a Lady Justice statue in the 16th century, and has been used intermittently since then. Apparently, its original significance was that the judicial system was tolerating abuse or ignorance of aspects of the law. However, in modern times, the blindfold represents the impartiality and objectivity of the law and that it doesn’t let outside factors, such as politics, wealth or fame, influence its decisions.

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. That is a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system and the basis of fair trials. If you, OP, were unfortunate enough to be falsely or maliciously accused of committing a criminal offence, you would be grateful for the presumption of innocence.

It is for the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt. The defendant, as an innocent person, is not required to prove anything at all. The defendant also has the right not to incriminate themselves. In the United States this right is written into the nation’s constitution, in the famous Fifth Amendment. Under English law, a simple ‘no comment’ will suffice.

Plus in the case the OP refers to the failure to prove guilt, if indeed the defendants were guilty, lies squarely at the feet of the Prosecution, blaming the loss of the case on one of the Defendants not taking the stand is ridiculous.

Society decided it would be better for potentially guilty people to go free rather than convict the innocent on a technicality.
The reason its stupid not to support that is it could be any one of us.

@5foot5

Where were you on the 3 of August 1999?

@SolasAnla
I give in. What happened?

No idea🤷🏼‍♀️, but everyone aged 23 or older, who cant answer is at risk of going to prison😣.

They were educated grammar school pupils

But you can't have one law for educated grammar school pupils and one law for kids from the local sink school.

@5foot5

5foot5

Where were you on the 3 of August 1999?

@SolasAnla
I give in. What happened?

I presume that’s the point being made: the answer for most people will be “I can’t remember” - which for the purposes of wanting to make it a criminal offence for a defendant not to answer accurately when questioned, will eventually be taken as a refusal to answer, and therefore contempt of court.

Oh I see! I thought she must be referencing a particularly memorable case. I have been googling "what happened on 3rd August 1999"

(Not much from what I could find)

People made a business of googling birthday facts Eg www.mybirthdayfacts.com/

👍

@Viviennemary

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

Simple answers to complex questions - from the people who brought you brexit.