Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Original poster

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

210 replies

Curly3456 · 26/03/2022 11:26

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?

OP posts:

x2boys · 27/03/2022 09:35

Our justice system isn't perfect
But when my dh was wrongly charged with a crime ( I was present throughout the situation) I was very great full for the innocentuntill proven guilty System ,and also that the jury has to find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt ,in my dh case ,it was resolved prior to trial .

Daftasabroom · 27/03/2022 12:03

@Viviennemary

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

You mean guilty until proven innocent? You've never been falsely arrested then?

bellac11 · 27/03/2022 12:07

Up until a while ago, the defendant wasnt allowed to give evidence. Cant remember when it changed, 1800s or something?

Thelnebriati · 27/03/2022 12:43

Google was unhelpful, but Wikipedia says;

''...from the 17th century. The defendant was considered "incompetent" to give evidence and attempts to force defendants to provide answers...were judged unlawful.
Being unable to speak at their own trial, the practice of defendants giving an unsworn statement was introduced and was recognised in law in 1883.
Defendants testifying in their own defence was also introduced in the 1880s (and extended to all offences by 1898) although the right to silence was clearly protected.''
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 27/03/2022 12:48

Simple answers to complex questions - from the people who brought you brexit.
Is there really no limit to the stuff some people will link to Brexit. That is just as fucking ridiculous as the OP’s and similar comments.

zingally · 27/03/2022 12:52

The right NOT to speak is one of the oldest laws in the English speaking world. It was designed to protect the defendant from all sorts of twists and turns and clever word-play employed by lawyers and the like. Who were often highly educated and more intelligent than the person on the stand.

And also, even if HAVING to speak in court became legal, how on earth could it be enforced? Yes, you could threaten prison etc, but you can't physically force another person to speak. And that also goes against the premise of "innocent until found guilty".

PurpleCarpets · 27/03/2022 13:28

@daimbarsatemydogsbone

Simple answers to complex questions - from the people who brought you brexit. Is there really no limit to the stuff some people will link to Brexit. That is just as fucking ridiculous as the OP’s and similar comments.

TBF letting people who don't understand complicated systems make simplistic decisions against the advice of experts who do invariably ends very badly!

OneTC · 27/03/2022 13:43

When I did jury service the defendant didn't take the stand and the judge told us that we could infer what we wanted from that, the emphasis seemed to be that we should infer that an innocent person would seek to clear themselves through testimony

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz · 27/03/2022 13:44

In the defendents defence (!), someone else is claiming that they did the crime. They shouldn't need to speak. Whoever is claiming they did it should be the one who has to speak and prove their reasoning.

EmpressCixi · 27/03/2022 14:30

@Curly3456

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

That would then constitute duress. Duress is any coercion to speak whether economic (fines, loss of job), imprisonment (loss of liberty), or physical (torture).

The right to remain silent was created because of the above old practices of obtaining confessions under duress.

Anniefrenchfry · 27/03/2022 14:39

Some people really can’t speak in court, anxiety, mental health etc can actually make people behave in ways they wouldn’t wish to. Your assumption makes it seem everyone is capable. Many innocent people end up in court, that’s why we have a court system, simoly being tried doesn’t make you guilty, and some people just can’t get up and respond on a lucid manner.

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 27/03/2022 15:02

TBF letting people who don't understand complicated systems make simplistic decisions against the advice of experts who do invariably ends very badly!
I think you have just described democracy (universal suffrage) and argued against it.

ZippeeDeeDoohDah · 27/03/2022 16:03

@Viviennemary

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

Rubbish. In theory, the defence doesn't have to do anything to prove they didn't commit a crime, the prosecution need to prove they did.

Not speaking is unwise, and may harm their defence, but it's still the prosecutions job to present the evidence that they did what they are accused of.

PixieLaLa · 27/03/2022 16:20

I agree with you, it doesn’t seem fair

Daftasabroom · 27/03/2022 16:28

@PixieLaLa why would it be unfair?

PixieLaLa · 27/03/2022 16:38

@Daftasabroom Because victims and witnesses have to speak/be cross examined by lawyers but the person who committed a crime doesn’t have to. In my opinion that doesn’t seem fair.

BronwenFrideswide · 27/03/2022 16:39

Rubbish. In theory, the defence doesn't have to do anything to prove they didn't commit a crime, the prosecution need to prove they did.

Not speaking is unwise, and may harm their defence, but it's still the prosecutions job to present the evidence that they did what they are accused of.

May being the crucial word. If the Prosecution case is relying solely on the defendant taking the stand to be cross examined by them to convince the Jury of their guilt then there is something amiss with the Prosecution's case.

Daftasabroom · 27/03/2022 16:43

@PixieLaLa why are you so sure the defendant committed a crime?

HerculesMulligan · 27/03/2022 16:44

You've got to love an OP who's watched a short documentary and worked out how to fix the criminal justice system once and for all. Oh, apart from the justice bit.

BronwenFrideswide · 27/03/2022 16:46

[quote PixieLaLa]@Daftasabroom Because victims and witnesses have to speak/be cross examined by lawyers but the person who committed a crime doesn’t have to. In my opinion that doesn’t seem fair.[/quote]
Because it is up to the Prosecution to provide the proof that the Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime they are alleged to have committed so of course the victims and witnesses have to be cross examined. The onus is not on the Defendant to prove their innocence, it is on the prosecution to prove their guilt, of course it is fair and right that's the whole basis of innocent until proven guilty.

Blimecory · 27/03/2022 16:47

Mayorquimby2 · 27/03/2022 16:49

[quote PixieLaLa]@Daftasabroom Because victims and witnesses have to speak/be cross examined by lawyers but the person who committed a crime doesn’t have to. In my opinion that doesn’t seem fair.[/quote]
They have to speak and be cross examined because the prosecution want them to form part of the prosecutions case.

If the defence want the defendants evidence to form part of the defence case then they have to speak and be cross examined.
Textbook fair procedures

The defendant would be quite happy for none of the witnesses or alleged United party to give evidence.

SexiestDogWalker · 27/03/2022 16:51

You'd have to impose a mandatory penalty for not speaking in court if you're capable of speech and if you're a defendant. Which I don't technically disagree with in principle; if your actions are defensible, it would be extremely unusual not to wish to defend them. It can be reasonably assumed that only the guilty choose not to answer questions, but there will always be an outlier. For example, say we impose a mandatory 3 year prison sentence for interfering with the course of justice for all the defendants who choose not to answer to the prosecution. Served consecutively if any other sentence is imposed. Out of 1000 people sentenced to this, two had extreme social anxiety, five had ADHD which meant they couldn't pay enough attention and process things well enough so knew they'd stumble no matter what, eleven had experienced prejudice due to their race, background or prior criminal record and felt nothing they said would be listened to. 28 people out of 1000 served that sentence not out of choice but out of circumstance. Even if they did the crime they were meant to be questioned over, should they have done that extra sentence on top? Is that ok if they're already a criminal?

Too murky in practice, I think.

crispmidnightpeace · 27/03/2022 16:53

@speakout

How will you impose such a rule?

This is the best point. People often ask these things without considering the practicalities.

Mayorquimby2 · 27/03/2022 16:53

Injured party

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9