Within an international context in which the right to silence has long been regarded as sacrosanct, this book provides the first comprehensive, empirically-based analysis of the effects of curtailing the right to silence. The right to silence has served as the practical expression of the principles that an individual was to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that it was for the prosecution to establish guilt. In 1791, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution proclaimed that none ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’. In more recent times, the privilege against self-incrimination has been a founding principle for the International Criminal Court, the new South African constitution and the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Despite this pedigree, over the past 30 years when governments have felt under pressure to combat crime or terrorism, the right to silence has been reconsidered (as in Australia), curtailed (in most of the United Kingdom) or circumvented (by the creation of the military tribunals to try the Guantánamo detainees). The analysis here focuses upon the effects of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in England and Wales. There, curtailing the right to silence was advocated in terms of ‘common sense’ policy-making and was achieved by an eclectic borrowing of concepts and policies from other jurisdictions. The implications of curtailing this right are here explored in detail with reference to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but within a comparative context that examines how different ‘types’ of legal systems regard the right to silence and the effects of constitutional protection.

This book considers the effectiveness and fairness of using international cooperation to obtain confession evidence or evidence of a suspect or accused person’s silence across borders. This is a question of balance in limiting and protecting the right to silence. The functioning of the applicable law in Denmark, England and Wales and Australia is analysed in relation to investigative and trial measures such as police questioning, administrative questioning powers, covert surveillance and the use of silence as evidence of guilt.On the national level, this work examines the way in which domestic rules balance the right to silence in national criminal proceedings, and whether investigative and trial rules produce continuity throughout the criminal proceedings as a whole. From the transnational perspective, comparative legal analysis is used to determine whether the national continuity may be disrupted to such an extent that cooperation in the gathering of confession evidence causes unfairness. From the international perspective, this research compares the right to silence under the ICCPR and the ECHR to identify the overall effect of cooperating under particular human rights frameworks on the question of balance.

"You have the right to remain silent." These words, drawn from the Supreme Court's famous decision in Miranda v. Arizona, have had a tremendous impact on the public imagination. But what a strange right this is. Of all the activities that are especially worthy of protection, that define us as human beings, foster human potential, and symbolize human ambition, why privilege silence? This thoughtful and iconoclastic book argues that silence can be an expression of freedom. A defiant silence demonstrates determination, courage, and will. Martyrs from a variety of faith traditions have given up their lives rather than renounce their god. During the Vietnam era, thousands of anonymous draft resisters refused to take the military oath that was a prelude to participating in what they believed was an immoral war. These silences speak to us. They are a manifestation of connection, commitment, and meaning. This link between silence and freedom is apparent in a variety of different contexts, which Seidman examines individually, including silence and apology, silence and self-incrimination, silence and interrogation, silence and torture, and silence and death. In discussing the problem of apology, for example, the author argues that although apology plays a crucial role in maintaining the illusion of human connection, the right to not apologize is equally crucial. Similarly, prohibition against torture--so prominent in national debate since the events of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib--is best understood as a right to silence, essential in preserving the distinction between mind and body on which human freedom depends.

10. Miscarriages of justice

Under the present law no person, including a suspect, is obliged to give information to the police in the course of a criminal investigation. But is the use of this right to silence evidence of guilt? Should the law be reformed? Those who argue that it should say that it would allow more effective prosecution and conviction of offenders. This study researches the evidence for this claim and examines the other issues surrounding this debate.

An outspoken legal scholar and author of America on Trial reveals why Fifth Amendment rights matter and how they are being reshaped, limited, and in some cases revoked in the wake of 9/11, in this absorbing look at one of the most essential constitutional rights.

This book considers the effectiveness and fairness of using international cooperation to obtain confession evidence or evidence of a suspect or accused person’s silence across borders. This is a question of balance in limiting and protecting the right to silence. The functioning of the applicable law in Denmark, England and Wales and Australia is analysed in relation to investigative and trial measures such as police questioning, administrative questioning powers, covert surveillance and the use of silence as evidence of guilt.On the national level, this work examines the way in which domestic rules balance the right to silence in national criminal proceedings, and whether investigative and trial rules produce continuity throughout the criminal proceedings as a whole. From the transnational perspective, comparative legal analysis is used to determine whether the national continuity may be disrupted to such an extent that cooperation in the gathering of confession evidence causes unfairness. From the international perspective, this research compares the right to silence under the ICCPR and the ECHR to identify the overall effect of cooperating under particular human rights frameworks on the question of balance.