Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Dec 3, 2009
Remaining silent
I am not a lawyer nor any expert in law, but this does seem strange to me.
There was, allegedly, a shocking attempted rape the other day. The shock is especially great because the alleged perp is an officer in the army.
Guilty? Innocent? I have no idea. Let the trial run its course. Not my issue.
What did irk me is something the judge said in the pre-hearing after some initial claims were made and the basic evidence was laid out. After the alleged perp initially gave his version of the events with his denial, he has since remained silent.
the judge who reviewed the situation discussed some of the evidence and then he also said that the defendants silence makes him look guilty. Somebody innocent makes sure to proclaim it as often as he can in whatever way he can.
The judge might be right about that, and to us casual observers, remaining silent often does look guilty. However, the judge is not a casual observer. the judge is the legal expert deciding the case. To him, a defendant using his right of silence is not supposed to look more guilty because of it. The judge is supposed to use the evidence and decide the case (there is no jury in the Israel legal system) - to use the defendants silence, when he has the right to choose silence, no matter how guilty it might make him look, the judge should not be using that as part of his consderations.
Am I wrong? I saw the statement by the judge and this bothered me.
There was, allegedly, a shocking attempted rape the other day. The shock is especially great because the alleged perp is an officer in the army.
Guilty? Innocent? I have no idea. Let the trial run its course. Not my issue.
What did irk me is something the judge said in the pre-hearing after some initial claims were made and the basic evidence was laid out. After the alleged perp initially gave his version of the events with his denial, he has since remained silent.
the judge who reviewed the situation discussed some of the evidence and then he also said that the defendants silence makes him look guilty. Somebody innocent makes sure to proclaim it as often as he can in whatever way he can.
The judge might be right about that, and to us casual observers, remaining silent often does look guilty. However, the judge is not a casual observer. the judge is the legal expert deciding the case. To him, a defendant using his right of silence is not supposed to look more guilty because of it. The judge is supposed to use the evidence and decide the case (there is no jury in the Israel legal system) - to use the defendants silence, when he has the right to choose silence, no matter how guilty it might make him look, the judge should not be using that as part of his consderations.
Am I wrong? I saw the statement by the judge and this bothered me.
Labels:
legal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
Actually you are wrong. In the US silence cannot be used against you, in Israel it can. In Israel while you have the right to remain silent, the judge is allowed to take your silence into account.
ReplyDeleteso what is the benefit of remaining silent? obviously by staying silent you will not incriminate yourself, but your silence alone is incriminating
ReplyDeleteMaybe not as incriminating as what you have to say.
ReplyDeleteA decision cannot be made against you based solely on your silence towards an accusation. That would be ridiculous. However it can be taken into account along with the other evidence.
ReplyDelete