The Effect of the Right to Silence on the Prosecution and Conviction of Criminal Suspects

1992 ◽  
pp. 253-262
Keyword(s):  
Right To Silence ◽  
Criminal Suspects ◽  
The Right

The Suspect’s Right to Silence in Viet Nam

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-69
Author(s):  
Tien Dung Lam
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Viet Nam ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Police Custody ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
Criminal Suspects ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Legal Constraints ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Viet Nam is attempting to develop a judicial reform strategy to uphold the rule of law and to protect the rights and interests of its people. However, the protection of the rights for criminal suspects in Viet Nam is still limited. In practice, there are still many legal constraints that limit the protection of a suspect’s rights in police custody. First, torture and other forms of ill treatment exist in the investigative phase and the court often condones these practices, regardless of whether the person charged has the constitutional right to both presumption of innocence and freedom from torture and other forms of ill-treatment. Second, the rules on police questioning of suspects and the taking of statements are vague and not respected carefully in reality. The absence of respect for these rights has several negative consequences for the suspect as it opens the way for torture and other forms of inhuman treatment to be used to extort confessions. So far, however, there has been little discussion about the right to silence for suspects in Viet Nam. Most studies on the rights of suspects have only been carried out in a small number of areas and limited to analysing the legal regulations protecting the general rights of the accused. No reliable study has been conducted on whether Viet Nam should guarantee the right to silence. Therefore, this article will explore the requirements needed to guarantee the right of the individual to protect himself or herself from self-incrimination in Viet Nam.

scholarly journals GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND OF THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO ONE’S OWN INCRIMINATION IN ROMANIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (83) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Carmen Adriana Domocos
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Right

The Romanian legislation establishes in the new penal procedure law the right to silence and the right of non-incrimination of the defendant in the criminal trial.The right to silence (to remain silent) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which judicial authorities cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect or a defendant to make statements, while having, however, a limited power to draw conclusions against them, from their refusal to make statements.Therefore, the right to silence involves not only the right not to testify against oneself, but also the right of the suspect or defendant not to incriminate oneself. The suspect or defendant cannot be compelled to assist in the production of evidence and cannot be sanctioned for failing to provide certain documents or other evidence. Obligation to testify against personal will, under the constraint of a fine or any other form of coercion constitutes an interference with the negative aspect of the right to freedom of expression which must be necessary in a democratic Romanian society.The right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination (the privilege against self-incrimination) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, according to which judicial bodies or any other state authority cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect, a defendant or a witness to cooperate by providing evidence which might incriminate him or which could constitute the basis for a new criminal charge. It is essential to clarify certain issues as far as this right is concerned.

Silence with caution: The right to silence in police investigations in Belgium

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110283
Author(s):  
Ashlee Beazley ◽  
Fien Gilleir ◽  
Michele Panzavolta ◽  
Joëlle Rozie ◽  
Miet Vanderhallen
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Digital Devices ◽  
Police Investigations ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

This article is about the right to remain silent within Belgium. Although the right has always been considered applicable, both the courts and parliament have historically demonstrated a disinclination to define or engage with this. The right to silence is now formally recognised in the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, albeit with the classic distinction between those who are not (yet) accused of a crime and those who are formal suspects: while all enjoy the right not to incriminate themselves, only formal suspects in Belgium enjoy the explicit right to remain silent. Accordingly, whilst no one may be obliged to assist with their own conviction or be forced to co-operate with the authorities, it remains unclear how far the right not to cooperate effectively stretches. The case law seems to be moving, albeit slowly, in the direction of confining this right within narrower borders, particularly by excluding its applicability with regard to the unlocking and decryption of digital devices. This is not, however, the only idiosyncrasy concerning the right to silence in Belgium. Among those also addressed in this article are: the lack of caution on the right to remain silent given to arrested persons immediately following their deprivation of liberty (an absence striking for its apparent breach of Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings); the possible inducement to breach the right to silence via the discretionary powers of the public prosecutor to offer a reduction or mitigation in sentence; the obscurity surrounding the definition of ‘interrogation’ and the consequences of this on both the caution and the obtaining of statements; and the extent to which judges can draw adverse inferences from the right to silence. The question remains: is the right to silence currently protected enough?

The Privilege against Self-incrimination and the Right to Silence

2018 ◽  
pp. 176-200
Author(s):  
Jonathan Doak ◽  
Claire McGourlay ◽  
Mark Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Right
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document