The right to remain silent

No. I don't have to invoke any other rights, do I?

I shouldn't have to declare to a police officer when I'm about to write a book or go to church.

I shouldn't have to declare to a police officer when I'm going to be leaving the house bearing arms.

I shouldn't have to declare to a police officer that I do not want troops quartered in my home.

I shouldn't have to declare to a police officer that he cannot search and seize me without a warrant.

Here we are in this thread. I could go on but you get it.

These are birthrights based solely on our humanity. We do not need to declare any of them, including the right to remain silent, because the Bill of Rights already does that for us.

Click to expand...

The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

Click to expand...

JT wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

I think Sotomayor has it right this time.

You must give every edge to the 'suspect' simply due to the disparity of force.

Click to expand...

Sotomayor and the other dissenting justices are wrong. Still, using your premise of "disparity of force" wouldn't it then make more sense to specifically and formally invoke your rights rather than just remain mute? If you tell them you won't be answering questions and want a lawyer they are legally sanctioned to stop asking questions. Remaining mute relies on your endurance.

At what point does mute silence invoke your right? Answer: Thesecond you go mute but you have placed no sanction on law enforcement other than the battle of wills you have entered into.

When does mere mute silence invalidate anything you say once you break your silence? Answer: Never

Click to expand...

No. I don't have to invoke any other rights, do I?

I shouldn't have to declare to a police officer when I'm about to write a book or go to church.

I shouldn't have to declare to a police officer when I'm going to be leaving the house bearing arms.

I shouldn't have to declare to a police officer that I do not want troops quartered in my home.

I shouldn't have to declare to a police officer that he cannot search and seize me without a warrant.

Here we are in this thread. I could go on but you get it.

These are birthrights based solely on our humanity. We do not need to declare any of them, including the right to remain silent, because the Bill of Rights already does that for us.

Click to expand...

'simmonsjoe' is right about this (although coming from me that will probably tar and feather him from now on in this site). The Fifth Amendment says: "No person...shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."


Among the things it doesn't say that it has been presumed to say, as for example in the Miranda Decision, is that no person can becompelled to give testimony against himself, or give evidence against himself, or provide damning information to the prosecution, etc., etc.

It says that no person can be compelled to act as a witnessagainst himself in any form or fashion. The merepresence of a person brought before an inquisition of any kind intended extract incriminating information from him violates the Fifth Amendment.

The Jewish Law, The Halakha, prohibits the use of any such information obtained from the accused in a trial whether obtain voluntarily on his part or not. The Halakha recognizes that people are sometimes self destructive and actagainst their own interests. Their law is meant to protect peoplefrom their ownself-destructiveness. And that is what the Fifth Amendment intendedto do, but has thus far failed to do as a result of contary precedents down through the years.

Think ofit this way: If all the Fifth Amendment was meant to do (in it's relevant parts)was to protect the guilty from acknowledging their guilt under oath, it isn't much of a protection is it? Why even bother with it?

Click to expand...

No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ...

Click to expand...

swine wrote:

'simmonsjoe' is right about this (although coming from me that will probably tar and feather him from now on in this site). The Fifth Amendment says: "No person...shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."


Among the things it doesn't say that it has been presumed to say, as for example in the Miranda Decision, is that no person can becompelled to give testimony against himself, or give evidence against himself, or provide damning information to the prosecution, etc., etc.

It says that no person can be compelled to act as a witnessagainst himself in any form or fashion. The merepresence of a person brought before an inquisition of any kind intended extract incriminating information from him violates the Fifth Amendment.

The Jewish Law, The Halakha, prohibits the use of any such information obtained from the accused in a trial whether obtain voluntarily on his part or not. The Halakha recognizes that people are sometimes self destructive and actagainst their own interests. Their law is meant to protect peoplefrom their ownself-destructiveness. And that is what the Fifth Amendment intendedto do, but has thus far failed to do as a result of contary precedents down through the years.

Think ofit this way: If all the Fifth Amendment was meant to do (in it's relevant parts)was to protect the guilty from acknowledging their guilt under oath, it isn't much of a protection is it? Why even bother with it?

Click to expand...

Nice post. If you can, could you post a reference to that part of Jewish law? If not, I'll google it later. That is an idea I hadn't considered.

Click to expand...

'simmonsjoe' is right about this (although coming from me that will probably tar and feather him from now on in this site). The Fifth Amendment says: "No person...shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."


Among the things it doesn't say that it has been presumed to say, as for example in the Miranda Decision, is that no person can becompelled to give testimony against himself, or give evidence against himself, or provide damning information to the prosecution, etc., etc.

It says that no person can be compelled to act as a witnessagainst himself in any form or fashion. The merepresence of a person brought before an inquisition of any kind intended extract incriminating information from him violates the Fifth Amendment.

The Jewish Law, The Halakha, prohibits the use of any such information obtained from the accused in a trial whether obtain voluntarily on his part or not. The Halakha recognizes that people are sometimes self destructive and actagainst their own interests. Their law is meant to protect peoplefrom their ownself-destructiveness. And that is what the Fifth Amendment intendedto do, but has thus far failed to do as a result of contary precedents down through the years.

Think ofit this way: If all the Fifth Amendment was meant to do (in it's relevant parts)was to protect the guilty from acknowledging their guilt under oath, it isn't much of a protection is it? Why even bother with it?

Click to expand...

3. 56.2 minutes.

Click to expand...

swine wrote:

Click to expand...

'simmonsjoe' is right about this (although coming from me that will probably tar and feather him from now on in this site). The Fifth Amendment says: "No person...shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."


Among the things it doesn't say that it has been presumed to say, as for example in the Miranda Decision, is that no person can becompelled to give testimony against himself, or give evidence against himself, or provide damning information to the prosecution, etc., etc.

It says that no person can be compelled to act as a witnessagainst himself in any form or fashion. The merepresence of a person brought before an inquisition of any kind intended extract incriminating information from him violates the Fifth Amendment.

The Jewish Law, The Halakha, prohibits the use of any such information obtained from the accused in a trial whether obtain voluntarily on his part or not. The Halakha recognizes that people are sometimes self destructive and actagainst their own interests. Their law is meant to protect peoplefrom their ownself-destructiveness. And that is what the Fifth Amendment intendedto do, but has thus far failed to do as a result of contary precedents down through the years.

Think ofit this way: If all the Fifth Amendment was meant to do (in it's relevant parts)was to protect the guilty from acknowledging their guilt under oath, it isn't much of a protection is it? Why even bother with it?

Click to expand...

Question 1: What does Jewish law have to do with this? We are talking about the 5th Amendment and the warnings which are required by Miranda and the limitations placed on police by that andrelatedcase law. The Halakha is cited in a well known SCOTUS decision (Garrity vs New Jersey) as an example of why anyone would or should be protected from giving incriminating evidence against himself, and to give an example of a legal system in which no incriminating information obtained by any means whatsoever can be usedagainst the accused.My own view is that the authors of the Fifth Amendment meant to provide the same level of protection to us, because anything less than that is so weak as to be pointless.

Question 2: At what point was Thompkins compelled to be a witness against himself thereby violating his 5th Amendment rights. At the pointat which the inquisitors started asking him questions, whether he answered them or not, to which the answersmight incriminate him in a criminal trial. It was at that point that he became a 'witness against himself' which the Fifth Amendment prohibits the inquisitors from compelling him to be.

Question 3: What period of silence must pass before police lose the authority to question a suspect who has been legally detained? The police have no authority under the Fifth Amendment to ask the accused ANY questions for which the answersmight incriminate him in a criminal matter. No period of silence is required.

Click to expand...

I repeat: What kind of puny 'protection' is provided by a law that only protects those already known to be guilty from admitting their guilt under oath? How are they'known tobe guilty' you might ask? Answer:by refusing to answerquestions as to whetherorthey are guilty or not.

Click to expand...

JT wrote:

swine wrote:

Click to expand...

'simmonsjoe' is right about this (although coming from me that will probably tar and feather him from now on in this site). The Fifth Amendment says: "No person...shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."


Among the things it doesn't say that it has been presumed to say, as for example in the Miranda Decision, is that no person can becompelled to give testimony against himself, or give evidence against himself, or provide damning information to the prosecution, etc., etc.

It says that no person can be compelled to act as a witnessagainst himself in any form or fashion. The merepresence of a person brought before an inquisition of any kind intended extract incriminating information from him violates the Fifth Amendment.

The Jewish Law, The Halakha, prohibits the use of any such information obtained from the accused in a trial whether obtain voluntarily on his part or not. The Halakha recognizes that people are sometimes self destructive and actagainst their own interests. Their law is meant to protect peoplefrom their ownself-destructiveness. And that is what the Fifth Amendment intendedto do, but has thus far failed to do as a result of contary precedents down through the years.

Think ofit this way: If all the Fifth Amendment was meant to do (in it's relevant parts)was to protect the guilty from acknowledging their guilt under oath, it isn't much of a protection is it? Why even bother with it?

Click to expand...

Question 1: What does Jewish law have to do with this? We are talking about the 5th Amendment and the warnings which are required by Miranda and the limitations placed on police by that andrelatedcase law. The Halakha is cited in a well known SCOTUS decision (Garrity vs New Jersey) as an example of why anyone would or should be protected from giving incriminating evidence against himself, and to give an example of a legal system in which no incriminating information obtained by any means whatsoever can be usedagainst the accused.My own view is that the authors of the Fifth Amendment meant to provide the same level of protection to us, because anything less than that is so weak as to be pointless.

Question 2: At what point was Thompkins compelled to be a witness against himself thereby violating his 5th Amendment rights. At the pointat which the inquisitors started asking him questions, whether he answered them or not, to which the answersmight incriminate him in a criminal trial. It was at that point that he became a 'witness against himself' which the Fifth Amendment prohibits the inquisitors from compelling him to be.

Question 3: What period of silence must pass before police lose the authority to question a suspect who has been legally detained? The police have no authority under the Fifth Amendment to ask the accused ANY questions for which the answersmight incriminate him in a criminal matter. No period of silence is required.

Click to expand...

I repeat: What kind of puny 'protection' is provided by a law that only protects those already known to be guilty from admitting their guilt under oath? How are they'known tobe guilty' you might ask? Answer:by refusing to answerquestions as to whetherorthey are guilty or not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

swine wrote:

JT wrote:

swine wrote:

Click to expand...

'simmonsjoe' is right about this (although coming from me that will probably tar and feather him from now on in this site). The Fifth Amendment says: "No person...shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."


Among the things it doesn't say that it has been presumed to say, as for example in the Miranda Decision, is that no person can becompelled to give testimony against himself, or give evidence against himself, or provide damning information to the prosecution, etc., etc.

It says that no person can be compelled to act as a witnessagainst himself in any form or fashion. The merepresence of a person brought before an inquisition of any kind intended extract incriminating information from him violates the Fifth Amendment.

The Jewish Law, The Halakha, prohibits the use of any such information obtained from the accused in a trial whether obtain voluntarily on his part or not. The Halakha recognizes that people are sometimes self destructive and actagainst their own interests. Their law is meant to protect peoplefrom their ownself-destructiveness. And that is what the Fifth Amendment intendedto do, but has thus far failed to do as a result of contary precedents down through the years.

Think ofit this way: If all the Fifth Amendment was meant to do (in it's relevant parts)was to protect the guilty from acknowledging their guilt under oath, it isn't much of a protection is it? Why even bother with it?

Click to expand...

Question 1: What does Jewish law have to do with this? We are talking about the 5th Amendment and the warnings which are required by Miranda and the limitations placed on police by that andrelatedcase law. The Halakha is cited in a well known SCOTUS decision (Garrity vs New Jersey) as an example of why anyone would or should be protected from giving incriminating evidence against himself, and to give an example of a legal system in which no incriminating information obtained by any means whatsoever can be usedagainst the accused.My own view is that the authors of the Fifth Amendment meant to provide the same level of protection to us, because anything less than that is so weak as to be pointless.

Question 2: At what point was Thompkins compelled to be a witness against himself thereby violating his 5th Amendment rights. At the pointat which the inquisitors started asking him questions, whether he answered them or not, to which the answersmight incriminate him in a criminal trial. It was at that point that he became a 'witness against himself' which the Fifth Amendment prohibits the inquisitors from compelling him to be.

Question 3: What period of silence must pass before police lose the authority to question a suspect who has been legally detained? The police have no authority under the Fifth Amendment to ask the accused ANY questions for which the answersmight incriminate him in a criminal matter. No period of silence is required.

Click to expand...

I repeat: What kind of puny 'protection' is provided by a law that only protects those already known to be guilty from admitting their guilt under oath? How are they'known tobe guilty' you might ask? Answer:by refusing to answerquestions as to whetherorthey are guilty or not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Oh crap! Troll man has returned! Admit that you are inferior to his opinions and emotions and run as fast as you can! Run I say, RUN!

Click to expand...

Oh crap! Troll man has returned! Admit that you are inferior to his opinions and emotions and run as fast as you can! Run I say, RUN!

Click to expand...

I repeat: What kind of puny 'protection' is provided by a law that only protects those already known to be guilty from admitting their guilt under oath? How are they'known tobe guilty' you might ask? Answer:by refusing to answerquestions as to whetherorthey are guilty or not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The most glaring example that there is no right to remain silent is that (at least in Alabama) there are two questions you must answer: What is your name? What is your address?

Click to expand...

The Halakha is cited in a well known SCOTUS decision (Garrity vs New Jersey) as an example of why anyone would or should be protected from giving incriminating evidence against himself, and to give an example of a legal system in which no incriminating information obtained by any means whatsoever can be usedagainst the accused.My own view is that the authors of the Fifth Amendment meant to provide the same level of protection to us, because anything less than that is so weak as to be pointless.

At the pointat which the inquisitors started asking him questions, whether he answered them or not, to which the answersmight incriminate him in a criminal trial. It was at that point that he became a 'witness against himself' which the Fifth Amendment prohibits the inquisitors from compelling him to be.

The police have no authority under the Fifth Amendment to ask the accused ANY questions for which the answersmight incriminate him in a criminal matter. No period of silence is required.

Click to expand...

I repeat: What kind of puny 'protection' is provided by a law that only protects those already known to be guilty from admitting their guilt under oath? How are they'known tobe guilty' you might ask? Answer:by refusing to answerquestions as to whetherorthey are guilty or not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The choice given petitioners was either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves. The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent. That practice, like interrogation practices we reviewed in Miranda v. Arizona, is "likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice." We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning and cannot be sustained as voluntary under our prior decisions.

Click to expand...

swine wrote:

I repeat: What kind of puny 'protection' is provided by a law that only protects those already known to be guilty from admitting their guilt under oath? How are they'known tobe guilty' you might ask? Answer:by refusing to answerquestions as to whetherorthey are guilty or not.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

So do you believe that the act of questioning a suspect is a violation of the 5th amendment?

It would seem that by a strict reading, the right against self incrimination only applies to statements made at trial. Under your view does this mean any evidence or confession obtained during questioning would be inadmissible as hearsay, inadmissible as a coerced confession, or do you believe the entire interview itself to be illegal regardless of the fruits thereof or the manner in which they were obtained (even voluntarily).

If it is the latter, then what basis do you have to assert that this is what the founders meant instead of the more commonly held views? Do you know of references to Jewish law in their writings, or of these views in particular no matter their origin?

On the other hand, if you were to ask me for writings proving they intended the more commonly held view then I must admit I cannot provide them. Perhaps someone else will be willing to do so if they exist.

Click to expand...