necoandjeff wrote:

> > how can the proper verdict be reached, if the "suspect"
> is
> > deliberately withholding knowledge or physical evidence? Why must the law
> > expend all their efforts (often ineffectively) to prove every damned
> thing,
> > which may prove IMPOSSIBLE without what the "suspect" knows?
>
> Happens all the time, even with those protections.

Which is why law enforcement also needs help to do their jobs as best they
can, not just defense attorneys, who are probably doing their best. If law
enforcement does not have a crystal ball to know who is really guilty, they do
not have a crystal ball to know all existing evidence, in an effort to prove
their case, either.

> If you think that most
> crimes don't result in convictions (and usually without a dramatic trial),
> you've been watching too many movies and too much TV.

So you mean there are 13 million convictions a year in the US, and about 2.5
million convictions a year (non traffic crime) in Japan? Every actual crime,
even just those reported, is punished? What say you to the finding (in Ohio,
anyway), that one rape trial in three results in conviction, or one rape
arrest in six? And what of unreported crimes, though they actually happened?
What "most" crimes result in conviction are you talking about?

> the founding fathers decided that liberty is such a precious thing
> that it is the state that should be made to jump through hoops before they
> take it away from you. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's not a difficult ideal to grasp. But in actual practice, it means millions
of crimes a year, go unpunished, because law enforcement is denied the means
to do their job. The Founding Fathers were dealing with tyrants oppressing
them for their words and thoughts, not global terrorists secretly conspiring
to commit crimes against them.

> The burden is on them, not you. You don't have to help them,

Why not, so long it is the truth? "Have you been drinking?" "Yes, I have. I
had four drinks." "Did you have sexual relations with this woman [not your
wife]?" "Yes, I did." What's the problem? Do you want this information to come
out and hurt you later after you've denied it or remained quiet, trying to
keep it from being known?

> though you are certainly free to do so.

If hindering investigation is a crime, then cooperating with investigation
should be required. You are always free to lie or produce your own false
evidence or witnesses. Just beware what happens when discovered.

> The minute you take away a person's right not to
> remain silent, you give the state the right to force you into a confession.

Since we are talking about actual investigation or trials, they still have to
try to prove what they claim, such as coming up with bodies and other evidence
to solve all those unsolved murders, and "suspects" who satisfy the
requirements to be found guilty of murder.

> Sounds like a recipe for abuse to me. You can't analyze it based on some
> anecdotal situation or a specific crime (an imaginary one in which you have
> the luxury of deciding that the person is already guilty, we just haven't
> convicted them yet.) Either you have the right to remain silent or you
> don't.

No, it is your assertion which is not so simple. So what of all those
criminals who are never found, or walk away? What of all those millions of
victims a year waiting for justice? Any comment for them? What of all the
other costs of crime including financial loss and loss of life, to the
society?

> That's great PR advice regarding illicit affairs that lead to trouble. What
> does any of this have to do with the general right to remain silent in the
> face of an accusation of a crime?

Why don't you keep the last bit of my post instead of snipping? Crime is
unsolved, and criminals walk, precisely because they may have knowledge or
knowledge of evidence that law enforcement ABSOLUTELY NEEDS, but they keep it
to themselves. It is not simply "anecdotal" as in one or a few, we cannot
imagine the scale. Precisely BECAUSE law enforcement is not everywhere at all
times, they simply cannot know the things they need on their own, particularly
if it is the express desire of the criminal to avoid discovery, as when
killing and disposing of a body in secret, or molesting a series of children.
Even the government with its millions can only do so much to investigate each
crime. The only way to try to reach the proper verdict guilty or even NOT
guilty, IS for law enforcement or juries to know everything they can. This is
not possible if people don't talk and police can't search. Put people like OJ
on the witness stand. They are free to lie, as has always been true.
Information need not be beaten out of him. But juries and the audience will be
able to compare what he says to the evidence at hand, to "decide" if he is a
liar or not, and to "decide" whether or not he should be treated as killer, or
at least a liar.