"Eric Takabayashi" <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message
news:412CE6AE.D2FDF816@yahoo.co.jp...
> necoandjeff wrote:
>
> > Everything below
>
> [Eric snips parts on fourth and fifth amendments]
>
> > relates to things that happen *before* a verdict.
>
> That's right. And 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. 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.

> > Do you have some sort of magic crystal ball to let us know whether the
> > accused is
> > actually a criminal or not so that we can then decide whether to apply
all
> > the usual protections?
>
> No, but afforded all the protections of the US Constitution (not
necessarily
> applicable in Japan), how can we prove the criminal (as in they did do
what
> they were accused of, or even more) is a criminal? You don't like drugs,
> "stress positions" or physical coercion to MAKE people talk? Fine, let's
not
> talk about that. But why is a "suspect" able to simply sit silently or
listen
> to their lawyer tell them not to say anything, relevant or irrelevant? In
those
> examples you snipped, tell the police officer who suspects you of DUI you
had
> alcohol and how many. Submit to the breathalyzer or blood or urine tests.
Don't
> hide behind the law or a lawyer.

Because 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. The
burden is on them, not you. You don't have to help them, though you are
certainly free to do so. 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.
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.

> Or some female acquaintance, perhaps a partner in an illicit affair,
FALSELY
> accuse you of rape, perhaps to protect her own dignity upon discovery of
the
> relationship? You damn well should reveal the existence and private
aspects of
> the relationship, even if it will cause you and your family shame or the
loss
> of job or business, in open court and the mass media. Why? Because IF the
> prosecution uncovers the evidence to provide the link, you will be shamed
> anyway. And even (for lack of knowledge or evidence you withhold) if you
are
> not "found" guilty (a proper result in this hypothetical, but
statistically
> uncommon case of false accusation), society will not be so kind to the
suspect,
> who also tried to avoid telling. If someone is so afraid of an illicit
> relationship or sex behavior coming to light, they should avoid such
behavior.

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?

Jeff