If you were a suspect being questioned in a police station, which of your rights would you exercise and which would you waive? Which of your rights would you regard as the most important? Why?
If you were a suspect being questioned in a police station, which of your rights would you exercise and which would you waive? Which of your rights would you regard as the most important? Why?
For many suspects the process of questioning in a police station is very stressful with 60% confessing or making damaging admissions. The ability to take advantage of the right to silence and right to see a solicitor in theory should help to alleviate some of this stress and consequently prevent false confessions which may constitute towards the 60% of confessions. However, in practise the evidence appears to show otherwise. The right to see a solicitor has been practised more adequately recently with more people actually getting advice from a lawyer rather than a clerk. The right to silence has been adopted in a harsh manner, failing to protect innocent suspect. This bring me onto the second question of which right I would use if I was a suspect. This depends on whether I am a guilty or innocent of the charges in question. Furthermore, if I was guilty I would be more inclined to use the right to silence whereas if I was innocent I would be less inclined to use it since the courts are able to infer guilt from silence. Although the right to a solicitor has proven to be ineffective by various researchers I would be more likely to adopt this right since it can help to alleviate any stress incurred as well as preventing a false confession.
The right to silence has been used through the Police and Criminal Evidence act 1984. Theoretically this right should help to protect nervous suspects from any groundless questions which police officers may ask. Especially since it is not seen as an obstruction and if the case goes to court the jury are reminded that the suspect was allowed to remain silent and must not find guilt based solely on silence. However, in practise it appears that the court can and does infer guilt from silence under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s. 34-39. Section 24 gives judges broad discretion to direct jury to what inferences they might properly draw. This leaves room for the judge to use his subjective opinions to consciously or unconsciously persuade the jury that the silence could be due to guilt. Guilt can be inferred from the defendant’s failure to provide explanations for the proximity to the scene of the crime under section 37. These provisions mean that the right to silence is only really worth adopting if you are guilty of the offence in question since it will prevent the suspect from making any damaging admissions which could lead to a conviction. If he remains silent there is a chance that the police will not have enough evidence to charge. Furthermore, if I was a guilty suspect being questioned I would exercise right to silence so as to avoid conviction or prosecution. However, the benefits of remaining silent are not as beneficial if I was an innocent suspect. There is a chance that if I went to court my silence could be inferred as guilt. In addition, there is a possibility that remaining silent could lengthen my detention in a police cell since under section 37 of Police and Criminal evidence Act they are able to keep suspects to try and obtain more evidence. Lengthy detention, particularly overnight, is the most feared consequence of arrest for most suspects. Furthermore, it could lead to false confessions in order to avoid a lengthy stay. For these reasons if I was an innocent victim I would not use my right to silence but instead cooperate since the risks are too much.
