ExpertLaw.com Forums

The Right to Remain Silent

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst Previous 1 2
  • 06-19-2012, 12:32 AM
    Dogmatique
    Re: A Person's Rights
    There are instances around the world where, when the prisoner choose "hunger strike", they have died because the authorities won't interfere.

    - - - Updated - - -

    (Then again, I'm also of the opinion that if a person chooses to die, s/he should be allowed to do so without penalty being applied. Sometimes, "do no harm" actually harms the patient more than the withholding of treatment)
  • 06-19-2012, 01:45 AM
    cdwjava
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Out here, every jail suicide I know of has resulted in HUUUUGE lawsuits by the survivors for negligence, failure to protect, or whatever ... there is no way that a jail or prison is simply going to let someone die if they have any means of preventing it.

    As was stated, when the inmate gets to the point that he or she can no longer object, that would be when they would act ... if they had not already obtained a court order to permit forced feeding, etc.
  • 06-19-2012, 01:11 PM
    jk
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Quote:

    Quoting Dogmatique
    View Post
    There are instances around the world where, when the prisoner choose "hunger strike", they have died because the authorities won't interfere.

    - - - Updated - - -

    (Then again, I'm also of the opinion that if a person chooses to die, s/he should be allowed to do so without penalty being applied. Sometimes, "do no harm" actually harms the patient more than the withholding of treatment)

    actually, we have one state that does allow doctor assisted suicide but there are restrictions to who is allowed to kill themselves. The person must have a prognosis of (I believe) of less than 6 months life left (among other things).

    Many, if not all states allow "do not resuscitate" orders. Many allow "do not feed" orders and "do not treat" orders but they all have their limitations. Generally, a physically healthy person is not going to be allowed to kill themselves as it generally shows mental deficiency which allows the courts to order forced feeding.

    and a huge reason a person isn't going to be allowed to die due to starvation is what Carl said. Everybody except that person is going to scream and yell that the authorities should have done something to save the person from themselves.
  • 06-20-2012, 07:42 AM
    cmre3456
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Actually both Oregon and Washington have "death with dignity" laws for the terminally ill. It's quite a process for the patient to get approved for it, and even then the Dr. may only prescribe the lethal dose and may not administer the meds.

    Those who have said that the authorities would step in and treat an attempt at suicide as a mental issue and intervene are correct to the best of my knowledge. A person can live about 3 days without water. Here, any police officer can take anyone into custody and transport that person to the mental health ward of a hospital for evaluation. After 4 hours of evaluation by mental health experts, the person must be released unless it is decided he is a danger to themselves or others. Then he may be kept for his own care and protection but the care giver must immediately file for a court order based on the evaluation.

    The authorities wouldn't allow someone to die. There would be a presumption of mental issues.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Back to the original right to remain silent, you have a right to remain silent about matters which might incriminate you. You don't have a right to be a rock. You have to comply with lawful orders. If arrested you will be searched and if driving, your car will be searched, inventoried, and impounded if you are alone.

    A reasonable person will at least identify himself and say "I don't wish to answer any other questions." In court, a reasonable person will answer non-incriminating questions from the judge with a "yes sir, no sir" level of respect. If half way smart, a person will at least be polite.
  • 06-20-2012, 08:41 AM
    jk
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Quote:

    Quoting cmre3456
    View Post

    Back to the original right to remain silent, you have a right to remain silent about matters which might incriminate you. You don't have a right to be a rock. You have to comply with lawful orders. If arrested you will be searched and if driving, your car will be searched, inventoried, and impounded if you are alone.

    A reasonable person will at least identify himself and say "I don't wish to answer any other questions." In court, a reasonable person will answer non-incriminating questions from the judge with a "yes sir, no sir" level of respect. If half way smart, a person will at least be polite.

    actually, you do have a right to remain totally silent. In some states, if you are arrested, there is a requirement to identify yourself. That does not have to be an oral communication. Other than that, there is no legal requirement to provide any information to anybody, anytime, that I am aware of.

    There is no such thing as a lawful order requiring you to speak. It is always a persons right to remain silent.

    if driving a car, the rules are very different. You must present a license when asked as well as registration and proof of insurance if the law requires such. Still, there is no requirement to speak.
  • 06-20-2012, 11:34 AM
    davidmcbeth3
    Re: A Person's Rights
    generally, you have to ID yourself if detained for something ... after that, you have to state your right to remain silent (recent SCOTUS) and then remain mum...

    You can do this throughout the entire legal process too .... the court will enter a not guilty plea for you....and you are not required to present a defense ... if found guilty, you go to jail ... they don't care if you talk or not..
  • 06-20-2012, 12:53 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Of course, remaining silent during the booking process can result in being held in administrative segregation, not being permitted bail or O/R release, and maybe an annoying medical exam.
  • 06-20-2012, 01:04 PM
    jk
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Quote:

    Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    Of course, remaining silent during the booking process can result in being held in administrative segregation, not being permitted bail or O/R release, and maybe an annoying medical exam.

    Now, I never even suggested there may not be adverse consequences for refusing to speak at all, just that it is legal.

    and as you suggest, a release on bail is less likely to be a possibility, especially when the judge asks: do you understand the restrictions imposed upon you as conditions of being released on bail.

    I'm guessing standing silent will be accepted as a negative response and as such, the judge will simply say:

    bail denied. Bailiff, return him to the pokey.


    and I wonder, where did the name pokey come from? Could it be is was due to some action expected once inside the jail? If all the other guys want to play pokey pokey, I suspect OP would eventually figure out refusing to speak might not be such a good idea, both when he was in court as well as now, while in jail. Sometimes you just gotta say no.
  • 06-20-2012, 01:12 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    and I wonder, where did the name pokey come from?

    I don't know, but apparently this guy does:

    http://www.word-detective.com/2009/02/hoosegow-pokey/
  • 06-20-2012, 01:17 PM
    jk
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Quote:

    Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    I don't know, but apparently this guy does:
    /



    Quote:

    “Pokey” as slang for “jail” dates to early 20th century America and is actually a variant form of “pogey,” a 19th century English word for “poorhouse” or “welfare hotel.” The roots of “pogey” are largely a mystery, but the word may be related to the adjective “poky,” an interesting word in itself. The original sense of “poky,” in the 18th century, was, logically, “something that pokes,” i.e., projects or points out (as in a “poke bonnet,” a style of the day that featured a prominent brim). In the 19th century, the word came to mean “cramped or confined,” as a small room might make a resident feel “poked at” by the walls. Since jail cells are not known for their generous elbow room, this is probably the connection between “poky” (cramped) and “pokey” (jail).


    HHmm, seems like there might be some support for my point.

    It's kind of funny reading that circular chase. Pokey-pogey-poky-pokey
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst Previous 1 2
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved