Prohibition on the Obligation to Disclose One’s Worldview, Religious Beliefs, or Religion in the Light of Article 53(7) of the Constitution of The Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997

The aim of this article is to present the normative content of article 53 clause 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2nd April 1997. The paper presents the subjective scope of the regulation, including the scope of subjects who enjoy the guarantee of the “right to silence” as well as the list of addressees of the prohibition. The analysis also presents the subjective scope of article 53 paragraph 7 of the Constitution, together with an indication of the legal problems that occur in the practice of law in the context of obligations to respect the “right to silence”. The research includes substantive and formal assessment of the legal provision in question.

On the Complete Realization of the Right to Silence in China from the Perspective of the Role Change of the Accused

Since the Zhou Dynasty, China has a tradition of “emphasizing confession”. Until now, “confession centrism” is still a deep-rooted judicial concept in the minds of judicial personnel. This leads to the repeated prohibition of extorting confessions by torture in our country, and eventually leads to many unjust and false cases. The long-term judicial tradition from “no confession without conviction” to “Leniency for confession and strictness for resistance” has made the accused bear different functions according to their different status in various stages of criminal proceedings, which makes the role overload, role conflict and role tension of the ordinary criminal accused more prominent, and even lead to the extreme situation of role collapse. To give the defendant an opportunity to change his identity may help us to find a solution to the complete realization of the right to silence and the protection of the right to abstain.

Interviewing the Suspect Who Exercises the Right to Remain Silent Without Producing a Prepared Statement

This chapter focuses on the suspects who exercise their right to remain silent, that is, to say 'no comment' in response to questions concerning the offence, but without presenting a prepared statement. It notes that this approach can cause interviewers to lose focus and control of the situation. The chapter details the effective, ethical, and professional conversation management of this scenario, by first examining the logic behind the decision, how it will be presented and then how to proceed, to ensure that a legally compliant interview product is obtained that can still advance the case. It also offers a detailed discussion about responding to the suspect who unexpectedly switching to answering questions and the suspect who is not legally represented and exercises the right to silence.

” I always ask all the necessary questions anyway“: Swedish police interviewers’ experiences when questioning uncooperative suspects

Purpose. Research-based interviewing techniques for detecting deceit typically rely upon suspects being, at least partially, responsive and engaged in the conversation. To date, the scientific literature is more limited regarding situations where the suspect remains silent or speaks very little. The present study aimed to examine Swedish police officers’ self-reported strategies when interviewing uncooperative suspects. Methods. A total of 289 police officers responded to a national survey that included questions about handling silence. The participants worked with a wide range of criminal cases, including financial crimes, fraud, violent offences, domestic abuse, volume crime, and traffic violations. We used content analysis to examine their written responses to the open-ended question: “What, if any, strategies do you use when interviewing suspects who speak very little or not at all?”. Results. Four main categories were identified relating to (1) question strategies (e.g., asking the questions anyway, using silence), (2) information strategies (e.g., emphasizing the benefits of cooperating, informing about their legal right to silence), (3) supportive strategies (e.g., being friendly, asking about reasons for silence), and (4) procedural strategies (e.g., changing interviewers, conducting multiple interviews). Practitioners working with violent crimes reported meeting uncooperative suspects more frequently compared to practitioners working with other criminal offences. Conclusions. The results provide an initial exploration into the various strategies used by police interviewers when questioning uncooperative suspects. Gaining a better understanding about the underlying reasons behind silence in different criminal contexts may facilitate the development of effective strategies for overcoming resistance.

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

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?

Keep silence for yourself: The protection of the right to silence in the Italian criminal justice system

The present article aims to discuss the protection of the right to silence in the Italian criminal justice system for an international audience. In Italy, the right to silence is a right that stems directly from the protection offered by the Constitution to the right of defence. Much debate revolves around the extent to which the right deserves to be safeguarded. Although the majority of scholarship favours the broadest extension of the right possible, this view is not endorsed unanimously. The legislature has introduced some limits, the most important being that which confines the right to silence to the facts concerning one’s own responsibility, save for exceptions. The courts, in turn, have taken a softer approach in the protection of the right to silence, which may allow the possibility of using the suspect’s silence to draw adverse consequences. Although the Italian system offers comparatively strong protection to the right to silence, it nonetheless leaves some openings that undermine the effectiveness of the right. This article therefore argues that compensating for the possible side effects of the rules on cooperation, removing some negative consequences of silence and the strengthening of remedies are the main fronts where the Italian system can still improve the protection of the right to silence.

A pragmatic attitude: The right to silence in the Netherlands

This article examines the workings of the right to silence in a system, which retains a large number of the original ‘inquisitorial’ elements. The right to remain silent was and is a highly contested issue in the Netherlands, which is reflected in the fragmented and often contradictory nature of the respective legal provisions. The Netherlands has diligently implemented the relevant EU Directives and the ECtHR case law in legislation and/or through case law, including the case law on adverse inferences. However, tensions with the right to silence arise indirectly through legislative provisions and case law. Relevant examples are the provisions on interrogative pressure, on the use of suspects’ statements made before invoking the right to silence and on the provision of access to digital data (such as phone passwords) by suspects for the purposes of investigation.