The Right to Remain Silent

[KingMachine]

My question involves criminal law for the state of:
The United States of America

This goes for any state simply because of the constitutional right to remain silent.
I'm very curious as to what would happen if from the moment you were spotted by a police officer (until however long this goes on) you can remain silent. I mean to say that if you remain silent permanently, what will happen as a series of processes? They ask you if you're guilty, not guilty, no contest. You just stand there and stare at them. What do they do? What can they make you do physically? What if you just ly there like a slug refusing to stand/eat/talk?

[Dogmatique]

They can have you declared incompetent, and have you committed.

Care to try?

[jk]

My question involves criminal law for the state of:
The United States of America

This goes for any state simply because of the constitutional right to remain silent.
I'm very curious as to what would happen if from the moment you were spotted by a police officer (until however long this goes on) you can remain silent. I mean to say that if you remain silent permanently, what will happen as a series of processes? They ask you if you're guilty, not guilty, no contest. You just stand there and stare at them. What do they do? What can they make you do physically? What if you just ly there like a slug refusing to stand/eat/talk?

at what point of the process are you talking about? What are the circumstances of first contact with the police.

If there is reason to arrest you, you will be arrested. If the state law requires you disclose your identity (some states have laws compelling you to divulge your identity is certain circumstances. If it involves one of the circumstances and you refuse to speak, you will be taken to jail.



I will say that if they want you to move and will not do it voluntarily, they will move you to wherever they want you to be. If you refuse to respond to the judge, a not guilty plea will be entered on your behalf and you will go on trial. A lawyer may be appointed to you to save you from yourself. You may be subjected to a mental exam.

If there is a trial, you will either be found guilty or not guilty. If not guilty, they release you. If guilty, they sentence you and take you to jail or prison. I suspect you will speak once you get there if for no other reason than to say: no thank you. I would not like you to do that to me.


if you remain silent, it you are arrested, there is a much greater chance you will not be released on bail.

If you refuse to eat, they will eventually toss you in the med ward and feed you whether you want it or not.

[Dogmatique]

JK, this is purely out of curiosity. Can they actually force-feed the accused in the US? Is it a State thing? I'll admit that I haven't even tried to research that this evening, more I was just wondering if you knew from the top of your head.

[aardvarc]

Ultimately refusal to eat would turn the case into a mental health one and the criminal case would in effect cease, the accused would become an involuntary mental health patient and cared for under whatever their regimen for feeding entails, until such time, if ever, found fit to stand trial (in a nutshell).

[jk]

JK, this is purely out of curiosity. Can they actually force-feed the accused in the US? Is it a State thing? I'll admit that I haven't even tried to research that this evening, more I was just wondering if you knew from the top of your head.

I do not believe they can do it if you are judged sane and capable of expressing your desire. Generally they wait until you are incapable of refusing. In the US, you can refuse treatment if able but once you are unconscious, there is a presumption one would wish to be treated. It won't take long if you don't eat or take any fluids to become delirious or even unconscious. After that point, it's dinner time.

[Dogmatique]

For some reason that really, really disturbs me.

[jk]

For some reason that really, really disturbs me.

which part?

and why?

[Dogmatique]

The assumption that a person would want to be fed and watered, I suppose. If the patient is, for example, on a hunger strike (I know this is far more common in Europe than the US) and happens to become unconscious - what, we can force-feed him against his will? It's the presumption part that really gets me, I suppose.

I know, I know. It happens.

[jk]

well, it's human nature for a sane person to want to continue to live. That means if one chooses to die, they are of questionable sanity and therefor, incapable of making a such a life or death situation. That can be used as a basis to force feed them. If they are unconscious, again, one would presume they did not wish to die and as such, they get treatment.

In any hunger strike I recall reading about, they did not force food or fluids upon them while there were capable of refusing it. Once they are unconscious, it's fair game.