Silence Louder than Words - Essay Example

?Silence: Louder than Words Abraham Lincoln once said “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” With all the hype over the first amendment’s freedom of speech, it appears Abraham was onto something to consider remaining silent a freedom to be esteemed in its own right. Throughout the ages people have been severely punished for what they have said or have failed to say. And today’s times are not always different however some important laws have been enforced on the legal front pertaining especially to remaining silent, which as Abraham said is better, at least on certain occasions. On March 13th 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona and taken to the Phoenix Police Station where he was then identified by the complaint-filing witness. Without being notified of his rights, Miranda was led into the interrogation room and questioned by police officers. In two hour’s time the officers had succeeded in obtaining a written and signed confession from Miranda. The signed statement claimed he signed it “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” When the case went to trial the prosecution used Miranda’s statement of confession against him and despite objections from the defense, the judge allowed for the confession to be admitted as evidence. Miranda appealed and the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled his rights were not violated because Miranda never requested council to be present during questioning. Miranda’s case went before the Supreme Court who acknowledged Miranda was never informed of his right to council or the right he had not to “be compelled to incriminate himself.” The Supreme Court ruled since Miranda did not have full knowledge of his rights all statements made by Miranda were inadmissible in court since they were not legally received. Furthermore the Supreme Court justified that since interrogation is intimidating, a suspect must first be given their rights to lessen the intimidation they experience. The Miranda Rights must be read before a suspect is to be questioned or interrogated in any way. The Miranda rights are read as followed: “You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? If you do decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” (essortment.com) The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights is “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The 6th Amendment Right to Counsel Clause coincides with the 5th intricately and was instituted in 1964 from the case of Escobedo vs. Illinois by the Supreme Court’s insistence that police allow council to be present during questioning. “In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” (flexyourrights.org). In historic times, such a notion as the right to silence did not exist. In the 18th century English Criminal procedure made it impossible for a suspect of a crime to protect themselves from self-incrimination. Common law refused a criminal the right to be defended by a lawyer therefore persons suspected of a crime had little choice but to speak for themselves because no one else was going to. Refusal to speak and answer questions was quite the same as refusing a defense. (legalday.com). Silence is now a service to defense, instead of a refusal of it. “While some feel it is unreasonable for the guilty to go free on technicalities (like Ernesto Miranda who pleaded guilty to kidnapping and rape!), it is currently held that it is necessary to occasionally allow the guilty to go free to protect the innocent from undue hardship.” (essortment.com). Freeing the guilty to protect the innocent seems a strange concept. Does not the freedom of the guilty cause undue hardships to the innocent? I know the merits of law must be based on the American principle of equality however imperfect it is. The right to silence was considered by many a handicap to officers in their pursuit of truth. And many prosecuting attorneys would agree it should be possible for them to directly examine the accused of their cases. The rights of the 5th amendment are very similar in the US and UK. Suspects in both providences are not obligated to answer questions of the police or to provide evidence or testimony while they appear in a court of law. The US has this right elevated to a place in its constitution and as such protects silence discouraging any means for adverse inferences to be drawn from it. The European Court of Human Rights analysis of the issue is “the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognized international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure.” Where the US and UK differ is in the UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 which says adverse references may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused fails to mention any fact which is later relied upon and which circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention, fails to give evidence or answer any question at trial, fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on himself, clothing, footwear, in his possession, or fails to account for his presence at place he is arrested. (wickipedia.org) Silence is golden; in legal territory though it would appear strong evidence in itself there is something to hide. The right of silence has been significantly challenged, altered and developed through its course and is still under construction in many respects. Courts have deemed some extenuating circumstances that set a limit on Miranda rights. For example whenever the state feels the need, a suspect or subpoenaed grand jury witness may be given a grant of immunity and compelled to give testimony under oath removing the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. Legally privileged communications such as those between lawyer and client, doctor and patient, and clergy and parishioner however cannot be imposed upon. In 1971 the case of Harris vs. New York the Burger Court ruled statements made by an individual who had not been given the Miranda rights could be used to challenge the credibility of their testimony at trial. New York vs. Quarles in 1984 created the public safety exception. Officers are able to ask questions before giving Miranda rights if the questions they ask pertain to an urgent situation affecting public safety. Also in the year 1984 came the Nix vs. Williams case that allows for the admittance in court of illegally seized evidence so long as it is believed the evidence would still have been discovered by police even without improper police questioning. (cliffnotes.com) An issue that remains yet to be solved by the Supreme Court is that of the conflict between Miranda and Raffel vs. US. In this significant case the court found that at the moment a suspect cooperates with police in any way prior to their arrest, a person gives up their 4th and 5th Amendment rights and they cannot be reclaimed later after the arrest has been made and Miranda rights have been given. Police do not have to advise a suspect of their rights until after they self-incriminate and are arrested. If suspects cooperate before their arrest they have surrendered most of the rights of which officers will advise them of. Police cannot be depended upon to properly inform you of your rights. It is wise then to be aware of the right you have to declare your intention to remain silent and to see a lawyer. The 5th Amendment would seem to law officials do not have justifiable right to evidence that would incriminate the person possessing it. The Supreme Court however requires defendants to place this burden upon themselves by granting immunity, supplying copies of defense investigative reports, and providing samples of their own blood or DNA. Over 90% of all felony convictions come with a guilty plea. Plea-bargaining is a highly common practice resulting from the pressure prosecutors and law officials place on defendants not just to be answered, but to secure their admission of guilt. When a defendant gives information regarding his involvement in the offence the Federal Sentencing Guidelines promise a considerably discounted sentence. Confess your wrong doing and you will not have to suffer the full penalty of it. It seems no country is more committed to obtaining guilty confessions from the mouth of suspects, which doesn’t exactly encourage America’s constitutional law of pleading the 5th. Thus the purpose of the 5th Amendment has been more for interrogational guidelines than the right of suspects to hold their silence. (legalday.com) The right of silence is a highly debated issue. Those who are for it believe it is for the benefit of the innocent not to have to speak. Those who oppose it feel it is a convenient escape for the guilty. As the philosopher Jeremy Bentham said, “Innocence claims the right of speaking, as guilt invokes the privilege of silence.” In other words, if you are innocent that enables you to speak boldly and courageously because there is nothing for you to hide. Yet if you are guilty it is better to remain silent for if you are to speak oftentimes it is for the purpose of falsely denying your wrong. The truth isn’t always pretty, and yet it is the only thing I find to be worth the trouble of hearing. I am baffled truly by the fact that grown adults like Miranda can admit to the shameful acts of kidnapping and rape and then be freed because he did not know his rights. Yes we are all humans with rights, but when Miranda chose to take away the rights of those he harmed, he also violated his own with them. It is impossible to do wrong to another without doing wrong to yourself at the same time. If someone is going to choose to do something they know is wrong, and we all of us were born with a conscience (despite what psychologists might say), therefore we know when we are about to perform a truly guilty act- and we should complete that act knowing and accepting the implications of them and our rights. Miranda and every other criminal in this world should be responsible enough to investigate their rights before they commit the crime. If a person wishes to commit murder, than they need to reflect upon and fully accept life imprisonment or the death penalty first. It should be the laws job to enforce these punishments without having to be picked on or scrutinized for every execution of these punishments. Every action of a person, weather it is action or reaction, is the sole responsibility of that person. And in a perfect world we would be accountable for each of these actions and take responsibility for them. So I am not entirely disposed favorably to the 5th Amendments right to silence. The question asked of me is my opinion on whether it should be expanded or not. If by expanded it is meant further improved and worked out to better the cause of justice then yes I am for that. I appreciate the alterations the courts have made already to its improvement. It is completely justified that suspects and witnesses can be subpoenaed. Come to think of it, the right of silence is almost rewarding and a positive re-enforcement that it is morally acceptable not to confess a wrong. Would we really teach that lesson to our children? When they hit a child or steal their toy and we ask them if they did it or what happened, would it be right to teach them they do not have to answer us? It is almost a lesson against accountability which I believe in very highly. Children try to avoid accountability by not answering the adult or blaming it on their friend or sibling. Should we teach children because adults are in a position of authority and bigger that they are naturally intimidating therefore we must lessen the intimidation to the children by undermining the adult’s authority by teaching the child they need not answer for their actions? Is it not the same lesson we are teaching suspects with the 5th Amendment? Those who need to learn more than most the lesson of accountability. Or worse we are teaching them the lesson of plea-bargaining, that there is a reward for acknowledging their guilt. That confessing they did something is worthy of praise and by saying they did the crime they don’t have to face the full consequence of their actions. Would we teach a child when they tell us they did steal the other child’s toy that since they told us they can keep the toy and play with it for a week before returning it to the rightful child? Would we tell a child that if they tell us what their friend Benny did then they will be off the hook for whatever it is they have done? Yet isn’t that what we are teaching adults time and time again when we offer them plea-bargains for their confessions or the confessions they make on behalf of others? I am honestly bothered by the whole scenario. The innocent don’t need to remain silent, they need to speak up for justice. An innocent person who keeps silent is guilty for doing so. And a guilty person who keeps silent is guilty more for doing so. Truth and perfect justice are not attainable and I respect that fact. How can a perfect law be created and implemented when all of us are law breakers? I speak not only of man-made laws but of higher law too. When a suspect is being questioned by a prosecutor that prosecutor is guilty of something as well in their own life, as is the judge and jury. Many, many obstacles such as what I just mentioned obscure the face of law. The right to silence is another such obstacle, and yet don’t they say over 90% of communication is non-verbal? Perhaps suspects tell us enough even when they refuse to do so with their mouths. In fact sometimes when they speak it is only to tell lies. Non-verbal communication tends to be honest. I guess my point is the fact that there is more to be observed than what is necessarily considered. I don’t believe truth comes to us more often through the mind than through our heart and yet we depend so readily on our rationalizations. Truth and justice are not attainable here and now. But they are more than idealized myths and they will be attainable. Despite what people say or fail to say in our court of law, there is a judgment day we must all face, the innocent and guilty alike. The judge will be an eye witness to every piece of evidence in existence. When suspects exercise the 5th Amendment right of silence, their thoughts are still known, and their unspoken words are still heard by the ultimate judge. Works Cited “Frequently Asked Questions-Arrest” flexyourrights.org Web. “Fifth Amendment: Right to Remain Silent” cliffnotes.com Wiley Publishing Inc. 2000-2011. Retrieved 14 May 2011 Web. “Right to Silence” legalday.com London 18 September 2005. Retrieved 14 May 2011 Web. “Right to Silence in England and Wales” wickipedia.org Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 17 March 2011. Retrieved on 14 May 2011 Web. Read More