ipl-logo

Issues Surrounding The Right To Silence And Current Law

1593 Words7 Pages

The Right to Silence

1.0 Introduction

This report will explore and evaluate the issues surrounding the right to silence and current law to make recommendations as to whether some aspects of the right to silence should be abolished. (THOMSON REUTERS, 2015).

2.0 Issues

When debating this topic, several issues are raised. Firstly is the question of whether the right to silence should apply for all types of people and all types of offences. For example, should it apply in the case of indictable offences? Should it apply to repeat offenders? Another question is whether one view should override the other, is the right to silence less important than the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof? How can the law strike a balance between …show more content…

Current Australian laws about the right to silence are outlined in the Evidence Act 1977 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Section 431 of the PPRA Subsection (1) states that ‘a police officer must, before a relevant person is questioned, caution the person in the way required under the responsibilities code’ (QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT, 2015). There is no law making it an offence to exercise the right during police questioning. The Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 Schedule 9 Section 26 details the wording of the caution which is as follows: 'before I ask you any questions I must tell you that you have the right to remain silent. This means you do not have to say anything, answer any question or make any statement unless you wish to do so. However, if you do say something or make a statement, it may later be used as evidence. Do you understand?’ (QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT, …show more content…

In regards to upholding the suspect’s rights, it is argued that there are many legitimate reasons for remaining silent, which are consistent with innocence. Among these include that suspects may distrust the police and fear that police will trick them into answering questions. Suspects may be reluctant to repeat an explanation given to police informally which was disbelieved. Innocent suspects may have a desire to protect others or fear being labelled a police informant or fear reprisal by the offender. Suspects may want to conceal something unrelated to the crime, which is personally embarrassing, or something that they are ashamed of or to conceal illegal behaviour, which is not under investigation. Suspects may have limited language ability or be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs at the time of questioning or have low IQ or mental deficiencies. There is concern that modification could result in police manipulating interviews by framing questions in a way that encourages suspects to remain silent. It’s argued that the right to silence provides a necessary incentive to police to investigate thoroughly and search for evidence beyond mere confessions (SKINNIDER, Eileen and Gordon, Frances,

Show More
Related
308 Words | 2 Pages

Although there are many other people to choose from, Lindsay Lohan is a great example of a modern tragic hero. She grew up in the wealthy parts of the Long Island suburbs located in New York. Both her parents had very profitable jobs. Her father took over his family's business as well as being a banker, and her mother worked as an analyst. Lindsay’s tragic flaw is impulsiveness.

Read More
437 Words | 2 Pages

If the accused refuses to answer questions or waives their right to counsel, the police can only interrogate the accused with the accused's legal counsel present as a result of Minnick v. Mississippi (Hall, 2015).Several variables are to be considered when law enforcement is conducting a custodial interrogation such as the age of the suspect, the intelligence level of the suspect, how familiar are they with the criminal justice system, and the mental and physical capacity of the suspect in terms of the crime they are suspected of committing as well as their voluntariness to waive their rights (Bethel, 2015). These variables are crucial for the prosecution as it details the suspect's characteristics and sometimes their motives for the crime they committed, and sometimes give further details than the officer anticipated, but the burden of proof lies on the prosecution's shoulders to prove the suspect waived their rights (Bethel, 2015). There are some instances where the suspect will "lawyer up" and the evidence is overwhelming, and the prosecution can elaborate the suspect refused to cooperate and refuse to reduce certain charges or offer a lesser charge for the suspect. The same applies to a suspect giving details of other details that are a violation of Miranda and cannot be used against the suspect but can be used in conjunction with other cases that are being investigated

Read More
1407 Words | 6 Pages

Both courts affirmed the lower court’s judgment and rejected Salinas’ claim that his silence was used in chief violation of the Fifth Amendment. Issue: Can one fairly conclude that an individual who agreed to be questioned has revoked the Fifth Amendment’s protection? Was Salinas’ silence a true exercise of this amendment? Rule: The petitioner must specifically call on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the time he relies on it in order to receive the benefit. Decision: Salinas’ claim fails because he did not verbally invoke this Fifth Amendment privilege in his response to the officer’s questions.

Read More
672 Words | 3 Pages

These rights must be read to all suspects. When authorities fail to inform the suspects of their rights, any evidence that is obtained under integration is inadmissible because it violates the suspect’s constitutional rights. In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, Escobedo was placed under interrogation in order to obtain a confession. The authorities failed to read Escobedo his rights, and continued interrogating for hours while denying his rights to see an attorney. During trial, the State used Escobedo’s confession but was held inadmissible because it was obtained unlawfully putting the defendant at risk of self-incrimination.

Read More
353 Words | 2 Pages

Before we ask you any questions, you must understand what your rights are. You have the right to remain silent. You are not required to say anything to us at any time or to answer any questions. Anything you say can be used against you in court. " These rights are due to the landmark case of 1966 known as Miranda vs. Arizona.

Read More
229 Words | 1 Pages

The description is an allegory for the lives of unskilled laborers in the stockyards, and, in the author’s view, for America at this time in history can be summed up in Jurgis’s line: “But I’m glad I’m not a hog!” The way toward murdering and separating animals is a comparative procedure to the routes in which Jurgis himself will be separated by the conditions of the city. This is not only an allegorical separating, either, as a physical procedure of cutting and injuring is an essential driver of downfall in the packing plants. Filled with pity, Jurgis watches a line of hogs going calmly down a chute to the executing floor. He doesn 't understand that he and his family, similar to those bound hogs, are trooping similarly unobtrusively to their own fate.

Read More
1163 Words | 5 Pages

The police intimidation sets a high amount of pressure on the suspect. For instance, Miranda did not have a lawyer present and was consistently put through questioning for two hours that led him to his confession. The court’s ruling showed the degree of the assurance of self-incrimination, specifically dealing with the mistreatment of suspect by the police during

Read More
883 Words | 4 Pages

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

Read More
925 Words | 4 Pages

In the Supreme Court Case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the challenge of the 5th and 6th amendment right was present. The 5th amendment states,” No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” (Constitution: VI Amendment). The amendment basically gives Americans the right to be silent. The 6th amendment states," In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…. and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense” (Constitution: VII Amendment).

Read More
911 Words | 4 Pages

The police then determine if the suspect is guilty and continuously interrogate, accuse, and even threaten the suspect for hours until they confess, whether they are guilty or not. On many occasions the people who are coerced into false confessions are have severe mental impairments that prevent them from functioning as a normal person with out the impairments would.

Read More
652 Words | 3 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona (1966). This is the U.S. Supreme Court case that resulted in the ruling of the way police conduct their work when a suspect is in custody. The head of the Justices was Earl Warren, he specifically ruled that the prosecution may not use self-incriminating facts made by a person who was under questioning in police custody unless certain precautions were taken before hand to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The court had decided to set new guidelines to ensure that the defendant understands his/her constitutional right to know that they do not have to self-incriminate themselves. This new policy would later be known as the Miranda rights, these consisted of the following, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law.

Read More
1020 Words | 5 Pages

A common reason that individuals have confessed to crimes they haven 't committed, is due to being under extreme duress or coerced by investigators determined to get to the bottom of cases. (2) Once an investigator has decided that an individual is guilty, it becomes less about the actual crime and more about this individual molding their idea of what happened to that of the investigators. Investigators will withhold food and water. Sometimes interrogating for hours. (2) As time progresses individuals become more desperate and some individuals will even begin to believe that what investigators are telling them is the truth.

Read More
705 Words | 3 Pages

Although, this tactic does not always work, it can cause some problems. Officers are supposed to use the tactic when there is a suspected criminal, but if it turns out there is no criminal it can cause many problems. Officers do not need to persuade the innocent because then the cops are just creating crime witch is the opposite of what they are supposed to do. The main point of this article is that it wants to make the structure and the frame work of the entrapment system clearer and more precise. The article identifies ways to make entrapment more stable and clearer.

Read More
1204 Words | 5 Pages

The article discusses how these are not crimes that are being committed, rather, these are crimes that are only being discussed. This raises the question of whether or not the United States is overcriminilizing speech. The article argues that in order for these crimes to seriously be considered as a criminal offense, the government needs to create an objective way of qualifying what is and

Read More
999 Words | 4 Pages

“Courts have permitted the interrogators to tell the suspect that if he confesses his conscience will be comforted or they will inform the suspect’s cooperation to the court” (Richard 2008). It is unethical to promise and give hope to the suspect that will not be met in order to obtain a voluntary confession which are induced. During interrogation someone may walk in and hide his identity like being a police officer, while acting like someone else and promise the suspect that he or she is here to help and they are in good hands. Doing this is violating the rights of the suspect and should be taken into consideration, because it inflicts the mind of a suspect. If the suspect is going to confess it should be voluntary not being forced to “voluntary

Read More

More about Issues Surrounding The Right To Silence And Current Law

Related Topics

Open Document