Let's tie today's post with the conversation I posted a few posts back. The Boston bombers (two Chechen brothers accused of terrorism when they allegedly planted bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing and wounding many innocent victims) are now the "poster boys" of the right to remain silent. One of the bombers is dead, killed in a shoot-out with authorities. The surviving brother is in the hospital and was being debriefed by the FBI and other security agencies when he was given legal counsel by a Federal judge. Once the accused's attorney showed up, further interviews ceased.
The reason I state this is the "poster boy" because many people in the U.S. are howling mad about this. Our country suffered a terrorist attack and the accused, who has a great deal of evidence against him, immediately "clammed up" when told to do so (allegedly) by his attorney. Arguments and opinions are flying back and forth across the net and on TV that this person has a "duty" to speak about anyone who helped him.
Yet this is the crux of the right against self-incrimination and the right not to speak to the police - it applies even in these horrendous situations. Yes, the great weight of the evidence is against the accused and yes, the situation looks like he is guilty.
But - the right against self-incrimination exists here as well
He still has the right to remain silent. If it does not apply in these situations, it certainly does not apply in situations where their is much less evidence against the accused.
The reason I state this is the "poster boy" because many people in the U.S. are howling mad about this. Our country suffered a terrorist attack and the accused, who has a great deal of evidence against him, immediately "clammed up" when told to do so (allegedly) by his attorney. Arguments and opinions are flying back and forth across the net and on TV that this person has a "duty" to speak about anyone who helped him.
Yet this is the crux of the right against self-incrimination and the right not to speak to the police - it applies even in these horrendous situations. Yes, the great weight of the evidence is against the accused and yes, the situation looks like he is guilty.
But - the right against self-incrimination exists here as well
He still has the right to remain silent. If it does not apply in these situations, it certainly does not apply in situations where their is much less evidence against the accused.
NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR
IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. IF
THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.
----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene
tausk
No comments:
Post a Comment