Letter: Wrong toremove this right
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I AM surprised that Alan Watkins, with his legal qualifications, should appear tohave nodded over the right to silence (10 October).
Mr Howard is not proposing to abolish it - he can't. He intends to allow the prosecution and the judge to draw attention to failure to reply to questions asked by the police. At present, only about 6 per cent of those arrested do not respond to questioning - and of them, two-thirds are convicted in any event.
So, the first point is that changing the rules will make little or no difference to the numbers convicted - rightly or not is, unfortunately, another matter these days - contrary to what the Home Secretary pretends for political purposes.
Second, the change is still a violation of an importantprinciple, and is in practice just as likely to lead to an increase of police pressure on suspects, as it will be easier to try and extract a confession from a bird in the hand than to ensure that the right bird has been taken from the bush.
What would bereasonable is to require the defence to disclose in good time an outline of the case they propose to put. But that should only happen after the accused has received proper legal advice.
Nothing will be achieved by imposing the new presumption that 'the innocent have nothing to hide' in the immediate aftermath of arrest.
Harvey R Cole
Winchester
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments