Comment by sigmoid10 4 days ago
>unlike some other countries
Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts of Asia via Roman law and is also a principle of Islamic law. There used to be some historic outgrowths that could be called presumption of guilt in England, but even that was more similar to civil forfeiture and not an actual guilt-based legal system.
I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all.
I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly".
It's not like the US is any better here - If a charge is trumped up or has bolt-ons to get you to take a plea deal, it's exactly the same thing, if not worse.
No, the US is far better.
Silence can’t be used against you.
That is better than silence being used against use.
Conflating that with trumped up charges is irrelevant to that point.
> No, the US is far better.
> Silence can’t be used against you.
As sibling comments have mentioned, not (no longer?) true.
"Opinion recap: If you want to claim the Fifth…"
> Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling.
* https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want...
"Silence as evidence: U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Fifth Amendment does not bar using a suspect’s silence as evidence of guilt"
* https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=61f0c293-44b7...
It can in fact. You should read "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane - the guy who went viral on youtube for explaining why you should never talk to the police and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video. Because in the real world that strategy is more likely to get you convicted after all. Especially since the Supreme Court massively weakened the Fifth Amendement in 2013.
>Silence can’t be used against you
It sure can, but in more hypocritical and roundabout ways:
The cops take suspision on your silence, and push extra hard to get you, instead of letting you go after a routine questioning.
Or the prosecution is offended by your silence and throws the book at you.
Technically both get to swear that your silence was never an issue, while both being motivated to fuck you over because of it.
> Silence can’t be used against you. > Conflating that with trumped up charges is irrelevant to that point.
They're two sides of the same coin. Let's say you are being accused of crime X, and you know you're innocent of it, and can prove it, because your spouse did it/you were hooking up with a congressman on grindr at the time/you were doing something else illegal you don't want to admit to/you believe the US justice system is fair and impartial.
The sentencing for said federal crime is N years. The prosecution charging you with crime X, plus Y plus Z with a potential max sentence of M years, or you can take a plea for N-2 years".
It all boils down to "are you willing to gamble spending M (where M >>>> N-2) years in prison based on an accusation designed to intimidate you".
> I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all. I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly".
Could you explain how one can exercise their right to silence without holding back information?
> pretty universal around the globe
except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") countries like China where if the police say you're guilty, you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed
IIRC the Napoleonic Code doesn't have presumption of innocence, and countries with a legal system built on that code don't have it either -- but I haven't researched it recently so couldn't say which those are.
What? No. The Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon) is for civil law in contrast to criminal law. The penal code promulgated under Napoleon is called... the Penal Code, and is not the one that was adopted across Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
The Napoleonic Code was civil law, nor criminal law. It doesn't deal with these issues. And it treated the burden of evidence similarly to how modern civil procedures do. France and all other countries that emerged from it have a variation of In dubio pro reo.
UK has this addition from the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act:
> You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.