The Right to Silence

[The Atheist]

Is about to change - in limited circumstances (for now) - in New Zealand.

It's some thing that has always been a thorny issue, probably most notably in the McCarthy era, when taking the 5th was seen as an admission of guilt.

A number of high-profile child murders, where the details were absolutely known by one or more people present has led the demand for change, and the current government has stated it will remove the right to silence for cases of child murder, with punishment of up to 10 years in prison for failure to speak to police - and possibly coroners.

Also in NZ, we have a superb example of a false confession to murder by a young man - Teina Pora - who served 20 years for a crime he did not commit.

There's a lengthy legal opinion by one of the country's senior barristers here, from the L:aw Society.

This is a law that I don't believe should be changed, but I can absolutely understand the desire to remove it. We had a case a few years back where a couple could not be forced to testify and the result was no charges being l;aid, despite certainty that the child had been murdered, and then the horrific case of the Kahui Twins.

I expect public opinion to be firmly on the side of the law change being enacted, but I can't personally support it.

 

[Planigale]

In the situation you describe, a child murdered by one parent, but both parents remain silent, so it is uncertain which committed the actual crime, the law in England would allow both to be charged and convicted of murder as a 'joint enterprise'. It does not remove the right to silence, but it is an incentive to give a statement. Being silent doesn't protect your spouse, and gets you in jail.