Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber vandervelde
    medieval punk rocker
    02 Oct '14 17:05
    British:::
    "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

    This is something one could hear only recently, in UK detective series for last decade.

    But all have grown up with American police series:::

    You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
    Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may)
    You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
    If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
    If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
    Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?



    California Supreme Court and Texas Supreme Court, however, had cut the Fifth amendment in two separate casses just in last year.

    Is the difference going to disappear?
  2. 02 Oct '14 17:18
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    British:::
    "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

    This is something one could hear only recently, in UK detective series for last decade.

    But all have grown up with American police series:: ...[text shortened]... fth amendment in two separate casses just in last year.

    Is the difference going to disappear?
    The Miranda rules are likely to remain in America.
  3. 02 Oct '14 23:32
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    British:::
    "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

    This is something one could hear only recently, in UK detective series for last decade.

    But all have grown up with American police series:: ...[text shortened]... fth amendment in two separate casses just in last year.

    Is the difference going to disappear?
    I don't think American defense lawyers would like "... it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" because it sounds like coercion to talk, and besides, it's legal advice and that's their territory.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Oct '14 00:37
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    British:::
    "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

    This is something one could hear only recently, in UK detective series for last decade.

    But all have grown up with American police series:: ...[text shortened]... fth amendment in two separate casses just in last year.

    Is the difference going to disappear?
    The Supreme Court's Miranda language seems to be working just fine. I don't see any good reason to change it. If the British want to change their language, that's up to them.