ExpertLaw.com Forums

The Right to Remain Silent

Printable View

  • 06-18-2012, 11:13 PM
    KingMachine
    The Right to Remain Silent
    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?
  • 06-18-2012, 11:18 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: A Person's Rights
    They can have you declared incompetent, and have you committed.

    Care to try?
  • 06-18-2012, 11:32 PM
    jk
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Quote:

    Quoting KingMachine
    View Post
    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.
  • 06-18-2012, 11:38 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: A Person's Rights
    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.

    :)
  • 06-18-2012, 11:44 PM
    aardvarc
    Re: A Person's Rights
    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).
  • 06-18-2012, 11:45 PM
    jk
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Quote:

    Quoting Dogmatique
    View Post
    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.
  • 06-18-2012, 11:47 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: A Person's Rights
    For some reason that really, really disturbs me.
  • 06-18-2012, 11:51 PM
    jk
    Re: A Person's Rights
    Quote:

    Quoting Dogmatique
    View Post
    For some reason that really, really disturbs me.

    which part?

    and why?
  • 06-18-2012, 11:55 PM
    Dogmatique
    Re: A Person's Rights
    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.
  • 06-19-2012, 12:00 AM
    jk
    Re: A Person's Rights
    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.
  • 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
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