Time to abolish the right to silence?

[Winston001]

The Kahui case has brought this idea alive and maybe it is time for a change. In centuries past, defendants had NO right to speak to the court, but over time this transformed into the Right To Silence.

I consider we have over-balanced protecting the rights of accused persons. The UK altered this more than 10 years ago where the rule is, if you refuse to give an explanation to the police, but magically remember one later in court, then your refusal will be taken into account.

That doesn't mean anyone can be compelled to speak - no torture allowed - but it sure as heck squeezes your choices about later suggesting other answers to the enquiries made by the nice occifers.......

[Forest]

The Herald put forward an excellent article on this question last year:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...ectid=10462331

I agree that it has become time to review the law.

[McJim]

The law is a beast of burden.....

[scumdog]

As per Winston 001 I'm all for the UK Caution - that way the offender has pressure put on them to come up with an explanation RIGHT NOW - not 5 months or so down the track.

[spudchucka]

The UK cops can also detain suspects without charge for questioning in regards to serious crimes for up to 3 days, (as I recall). This would be a whole lot better than allowing them a month to rehearse the acts they will play for the police once they decide their cultural sensitivity has had sufficient time to be able to front up to the plod.

It was interesting last night on the news there was a piece on the middle aged white guy that gave his dying Mum a does or morphine to ease her pain and ended up charged with attempted murder, (and was found guilty). His sisters were explaining how they weren't allowed to remain at the bed side as it was deemed a crime scene and that they were all whisked away to the police station where they were all subjected to five hour interviews.

[SixPackBack]

Removing civil liberties because of the authorities inability to solve a single crime defies logic. Let us not forget that in the kahui case the prosecution was hardly a stellar attempt.

[jimbo600]

Yep take away the right to silence. If you're innocent then why not say so. If you're not talking is because you're hiding something. Civil liberties blah blah blah. For sake of protecting the rest of us some Civil Liberty BS should be binned.

In the case of some folk the right to breed should be taken away too.

[Swoop]

Keep it as it is. We already have enough big-brother mentality in NZ.

In the Kahui case, there should have been some form of "obstructing justice" charge against the whole family.

[mowgli]

People forget that the law is not designed to lock up every criminal. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution and guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The system prefers to let a few crims off than lock up any innocents.

I agree with Swoop regarding obstructing justice.

[Winston001]

Removing civil liberties because of the authorities inability to solve a single crime defies logic.

Except that with civil liberties flow civil responsibilities - which get conveniently overlooked. The idea that the right to silence be removed, has been growing for ten years now in various jurisdictions, it has little to do with the Kahui case. England, the cradle of our legal system, modified the right in 1994.

I agree that any change needs to be cautiously approached. At present - and this is what the average person finds so hard to understand, no-one can be compelled to speak to the police. That is an important freedom.

It isn't obstruction of justice to remain silent. Maybe that should change. We could move to the inquisitorial system used in Europe where judges question witnesses during the investigation.

[scumdog]

Keep it as it is. We already have enough big-brother mentality in NZ.

In the Kahui case, there should have been some form of "obstructing justice" charge against the whole family.

And make the penalty the same as murder? pfft! - I don't think so.

Hence why the Kahuis were probably already prepared to to risk a charge of "obstructing justice".

[98tls]

Should have just said "no more dole until one of you fesses up" the others would have dobbed them in in no time. That or fess up or you all lose your heads.Sure wouldnt have been much of a loss,hell with the $ that lot are raking in if it was cut off the rest of us might get a decent tax break.