The accused is not compellable as a witness in his own defence but a decision not to testify is usually regarded as tactically astute. In certain situations, s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 permits the jury to draw “such interference as appear proper” from the accused’s failure to give evidence or his refusal to answer to a particular question put to him. Despite the fundamental nature of the rights involved in silence, very great public dissatisfaction arose at the ease with which many defendants appeared able to evade justice by resorting to silence in the knowledge that this could do their case no harm and might well allow their very silence as a right to inject reasonable doubt into the trial. There was also great unease at the idea of defendants being permitted to advance defences and matters at trial for the first time, long after any satisfactory investigations into the matter had ceased to be possible. The experience of Northern Ireland legislation, based on recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee showed that there was a supportable case for allowing inferences to be drawn from silence. Parliament took the initiative in ss34-39 CJPOA 1994. This also paved the way for allowing adverse comment by the prosecution and adverse inferences to be drawn from failure to give evidence. The fundamental principle as stated in R v Martinez- Tobon is that the silence of the accused adds nothing to the prosecution case nor does it takes anything away. The accused silence is not itself evidence. He could only be convicted on the evidence which is presented to the jury. The fact that inferences are drawn from his accuse does nothing but leave the evidence of the prosecution unchallenged. The jury may presume the evidence to be true if unchallenged (s35 1994 act). The burden of proof is not affected and only if they are satisfied that it is beyond reasonable doubt would they convict. S38(3) states that conviction of the accused could not be base solely on the inferences drawn under s35.
Victims’ rights include being informed of the investigation, being able to make a witness statement, being informed of the charges laid against the accused and being treated with sympathy and compassion. (Charter of Victim’s Rights NT 2016). The rights of the accused are outlined Article 14 of ‘The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, which states that the accused must; be informed of the charges laid against them, have adequate time to prepare and choose a counsel of their choosing, be tried without undue delay, be tried in the presence of the court, not be compelled to testify against themselves or confess guilt and be compensated by the court if wrongfully convicted (ICCPR 1966). These rights must be upheld to ensure equality before the law, however, when neglected justice is denied as illustrated in the Mallard and Raggett
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
The title of this essay “Silence and the Notion of the Commons” gives the same idea of people as programmable and unprogrammable similar to the idea seen in the Matrix. Whereas programmable people, who are the commons, are the people inside the matrix they are also known as the sheep, the people that believe in everything they are told. The unprogrammable people, who are the silence, are the people outside of the matrix. Ursula Franklin uses a variety of techniques in order for the audience to fully understand her message, and to inform them of the topics discussed in her essay, as is particularly apparent in paragraph 5 of her essay “Silence and the Notion of the Commons.”
The act of interrogation has been around for thousands of years. From the Punic Wars to the war in Iraq, interrogating criminals, prisoners or military officers in order to receive advantageous information has been regularly used. These interrogation techniques can range from physical pain to emotional distress. Hitting an individual with a whip while they hang from a ceiling or excessively questioning them may seem like an ideal way to get them to reveal something, but in reality it is ineffective and . This is because even the most enduring individual can be made to admit anything under excruciating circumstances. In the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights there is a provision (“no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” ) which reflects a time-honored common principle that no person is bound to betray him or herself or can be forced to give incriminating evidence. This ideology of self-incrimination has been challenged heavily over the past s...
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
Driving through Charlestown will take you just three minutes. The kids on street corners will stare at your car, while adults will yell out your name and wave. The friendly atmosphere can make you feel welcome if you are a part of the neighborhood. But it vanishes if you are an outsider or a local victim of a crime.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
Freedom of speech was a big topic spoken about in the 1950’s and even today. Schools in the 1950’s had to recite a specific prayer every morning in school not like today. Students had to recite the “twenty two word regents prayer”. The Engel Vs Vitale case has to do with separation of church and state, meaning that there should be a separation between peoples views on religious freedom and the government. In the first amendment, Thomas Jefferson introduced this law and rule during the colonies but then this later evolved into the United States, where into the 1950’s became a huge debate on who was right and who was wrong. The Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale expanded the rights of Americans because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stephen Engel and the families of the students against prayer in schooling; because of this decision, students should be able to absent themselves from prayer in school.
The philosophy of rights has been a perennial subject of discussion not only because it is embedded in the intellectual tradition and political practices of many countries but also because it exhibits deep divisions of opinion on fundamental matters. Even a cursory survey of the literature on rights since, say, the time of the Second World War would turn up a number of perplexing questions to which widely divergent answers have been given: What are rights? Are rights morally fundamental? Are there any natural rights? Do human rights exist? Are all the things listed in the UN's Universal Declaration (of 1948) truly rights? What are moral rights? Legal rights? Are basic moral rights compatible with utilitarianism? How are rights to be justified? What is the value of rights? Can infants have rights, can fetuses have them, or future generations, or animals? And so on.
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
The Right to Remain Silent The right of silence long considered the most fundamental right of a
The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are apart of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose (Privacy Concerns 1). “Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right…” (Privacy concerns 2). In 1998, the Human Rights Act, the act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals have, came into force; it incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 which protects the right to private and family life. Was the first time there was a generalized right to privacy recognized by law in this country.
In conclusion, silence is just as dangerous as speaking out, and inaction and the absence of compassion is catastrophic. They Jews did not take any action to prevent them from death and stood in silence. They had not revolted against the officers for they knew that death would come. But as they stayed silent and took no action, they are killed. To add to this, God's compassion to the Jews is absent, and they are losing faith. No pity can be felt for one another, for it is a battle of every man for themselves. Given these points, the inaction and absence of compassion leads them to their death because their inactions weakened them and the Jews are killed, and compassion removes their faith and hope which leads them to giving up. The Jews did