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?

[quote Blackberrycream]@SolasAnia
That is quite a jump in logic you made there.
I was stating that there is inequality in the treatment of certain groups/communities in the justice system. It’s really not that controversial a statement. Some cases in particular bring this to the fore. I believe this is one of them. It needs review.[/quote]
The whole thread is about removing parts of the justice system.

Its a jury who sits and listens to the evidence.

The duty of the 12 citizens is to listen to evidence and leave their personal bias (in so far as humanly possible) at the door.
This thread proves that basic civics lessons on the how the system works should be part of the ongoing educational process.
Likeability is an apeal to jury bias. Even with professional jury's or relying on the Judge decision wont eliminate that risk.

@Lockheart

I think quite a few posters might benefit from watching this:

It's 12 mins long but it explains the core principles and how they interact, and what barristers can or should do or not do if the client admits they are guilty.

Yes, they can claim that their client (despite admitting killing the victim) acted in self defence. This may or may not be actually true. The defendant may be lying. The prosecution may well prove they are lying - the defence team stick to the story, regardless.

The defendant may be lying. The prosecution may well prove they are lying - the defence team stick to the story, regardless.

In which case the jury will convict.

@LardyDee

The defendant may be lying. The prosecution may well prove they are lying - the defence team stick to the story, regardless.

In which case the jury will convict.

I think the posters are arguing that the defendant must take the stand so the Prosecution can cross examine, catch them out and prove the lie that way, but as we keep pointing out the defendant does not have to prove anything.

But in this hypothetical the prosecution has proven that the defendant is lying.

I suspect the OP has never been falsely accused.
When it happens to you it’s very different, especially if the accuser is your abuser.

Well I think there was certainly an appeal to jury bias.
Also as @BrokenNHS says, the investigation and I would add the prosecution of the case show bias. I think most here understand quite well how the judicial system works. That doesn’t mean people can’t feel anger at the way this particular case was handled. I actually think it’s worrying that some so glibly dismiss concerns.
I suppose if these issues will never affect you personally it is easy to look away. For working class city youth it appears you can be knifed to death on the street and still be painted as a ‘threat’. I wonder who actually did feel threatened. It would be laughable it if wasn’t so offensive.

@Curly3456

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

Don’t be so ridiculous

I think you have to somewhat trust barristers whose whole job is to take on a case to decide whether their client may alienate a jury for whatever reason if they speak or cross examined. & yes innocent until proven guilty. Better that ( as above Blackstones ratio) 10 guilty people go free that one innocent man is convicted.

OK I sound a bit wishy washy but there you go

The main reason is that the prosecution have to provide evidence that the dependent committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt and it is not for the dependent to assist them if they are pleading not guilty.