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?

It's a cornerstone of Justice that the person in the dock is presumed innocent until proven guilty at the end of the trial, it is rather concerning that some people on here fail to grasp this fundamental tenet of the Justice system and where it leads if it is subverted.

@Viviennemary

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

Is there a group this would affect mostly? A group perhaps who have a lack of education and attainment in general due to discrimination?

@HerculesMulligan

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.

Agreed - and who also seeks to argue against an absolute right enshrined in the constitutions of many countries including the USA. But of course, they're all wrong.

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.

I absolutely disagree with it on principle, there's nothing principled about it at all.

The thing that’s really coming through on this thread is how misleading tv documentaries can be, on pretty much anything but I think especially on the criminal justice system.

OP has changed her mind pretty much straightaway on finding out about adverse inferences, something the doc obviously didn’t mention! I find even respected news sources are pretty bad at this sort of thing, they just want to tell the baddies/goodies narrative.

How many steps are there between making it a crime for a defendant to refuse to give evidence and forcing them to read a script? Is compelled speech valid as evidence in UK law?

@Curly3456 also if you do get arrested and interviewed never ever ever give a statement to the police without a lawyer present.

Exactly, eastegg, the documentary was only ever going to put the side/conclusion they wanted the viewer to accept/come to. The simple fact in this case is that the Prosecution failed to convince a Jury of 12 of their case, if it is a miscarriage of justice for Yousef it is down to that failure not the fact that one of the defendants didn't take the stand in his own defence.

[quote Daftasabroom]@Curly3456 also if you do get arrested and interviewed never ever ever give a statement to the police without a lawyer present.[/quote]
Very wise advice.

The burden or proof beyond a reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution.

If you are accused if a crime, you are not required to incriminate yourself.

If you do decide to testify, many thing such as prior history become fair game.

Our common law system has long had the right to remain silent.

Well if anyone wondered what Priti Patels MN username is, I think the search is over. At first I did think it was Raab, but generally the posts aren't that dim.

YABU.

Innocent until proven guilty is a very important part of the UK legal system. Lying on the stand is perjury and would lead to a criminal conviction, so that means defendants wouldn't have the right to not incriminate themselves on the stand. If a defendant is in fact innocent but not educated well, a good lawyer could find a way to trip someone up to admitted something they a) may not have done or b) just makes it look like they've been lying to the police and on the stand. Once on the stand to tell their side of the story, the defendants will always be subjected to the prosecution.

While the defendants in the case you brought up OP were well-edcauted, not all of them are. The judicial system needs to be fair to all regardless of education and mental state. Is it perfect? Nope! No system is perfect. But the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

The boys are extremely wealthy with parents who could pay for the best legal advice. That particular boy would have been told to remain silent.
The answer isn’t to change the legal system. This case does need to be reviewed though. Molnar lied about the initial circumstances then claimed self defence.
One boy without a mark on him, one boy stabbed through the heart and yet the one who wielded the knife claims ‘ he felt threatened’ .
The case provokes a lot of anger in a city that has seen working class boys convicted under joint enterprise. How on earth were the prosecution unable to secure a conviction for manslaughter at the very least?
Many details are widely known including the probable motive. Some of it has been in the press. It is a really disturbing case.

@SexiestDogWalker

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.

You are the accused on trial so you are the criminal.

Where were you on the 3 of August 1999?

[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]
That's just it ,the defendant is innocent untill proven guilty ,that is our justice system
Just because someone has been charged with a crime ,doesn't make them guilty of it ,the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt

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

It's already 2 years in chokey if you don't ("reasonably") divulge encryption keys when asked.

And when you've done your 2 years, and they ask you again, it's another 2 years.

YABU.

Straight away you have a whole section of society at a disadvantage. Children, people with mental health disorders or learning difficulties, people with low IQ or uneducated, people that don't speak the language well and so on. Juries do convict people for not coming across well, prosecutors do twist words and facts or try to trigger a reaction.

@daimbarsatemydogsbone

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.

I've described direct democracy (as opposed our system of representative democracy) and argued against it. Rule by referendum would be a disaster. A referendum on whether suspected criminals should be entitled to remain silent, or allowing the public to decide on a whole host of details on the criminal-justice system would I suspect soon lead to brutal and entirely dysfunctional system.

If you want to see how well non-experts are able to decide complex questions by simple referendums you need look no further than brexit.

It's an interesting philosophical question. What you're saying is people can't be trusted because there's a danger they won't listen to experts.

I personally disagree with the death penalty - polls suggest if we had a referendum on that it would be narrowly in favour (although rather like the EU one, we won't know unless we try). I am pleased my view prevails, but if we had a referendum and the death penalty was restored, I would not interpret that as proof that people are thick twats who won't listen to experts, but just that a majority didn't agree with me.

Abolition of the right to silence would be wrong in my opinion.

Watching now and the defendants are disgusting human beings.
They said very little and what they did say was either untruthful or said solely to minimise their actions.
Absolutely Hateful.

Generally it's best to speak if you're innocent and keep quiet if you're guilty.

If innocent most people would answer questions fully to to demonstrate that they did not commit the crime.

If guilty it's better to keep quiet in case they try to trip you up.

The problem with the legal system is that lawyers are not trying to get justice, they're trying to get the result they're being paid to get. It's unfair to put a trained lawyer up against a normal civilian and twist their words. I think that the legal team that loses should be punished in some way too, especially in particularly bad cases where the accused is clearly guilty. The threat of being imprisoned might persuade many lawyers to avoid certain cases altogether.

The threat of being imprisoned might persuade many lawyers to avoid certain cases altogether.

So you don't believe everyone is entitled to legal representation?

I was on a jury when the defendant decided on the day not to give evidence. The judge asked the defending counsel whether it had been made clear to the defendant that the jury could infer from that what they wanted.

@Curly3456

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

Your suggestion presumes guilt. That's not how the system works. It's weighed against the defendant enough as it is.

Do people imagine that forcing people to speak somehow guarantees a truthful or helpful answer? Its such a bizzare demand. I can't understand why they think its a good idea, no one has really explained why they support it.
But it does show thye don't understand the justice system, or what it would be like to be falsely accused.