Why do we have a “right to remain silent” in criminal cases?

In all of the cases known in every legal principle, only the criminal cases affects the life and liberty of a person. It means that when a person is charged with a criminal offense, the accused person is exposing himself to the danger of losing his liberty or the worst – his life.

In civil cases, a person liable shall only be obliged to pay [in legal term - indemnify] or to restore the object at issue. In administrative cases, only the employment, rights and privileges may be threatened.

Today, it has become an international standard to afford every person arrested for a possible crime [crime is any violation of a law; while civil case is any violation against personal right] to inform him of his right to remain silent. We have the widely accepted “Miranda Rule” in American Jurisprudence to inform the apprehended subject of his rights to remain silent, to counsel, and others.

The right to remain silent is a right granted by the state to any person charged or indicted for a crime. However, this right is only indispensable when a state or when a sovereign authority presumed the innocence of the arrested or accused person. Meaning, the right to remain silent is worthless when the sovereign authority presumed the guilt of a person. In my professional opinion, a person’s silence shall have no meaning when he is presumed guilty.

Let us to see, what constitutes the right to remain silent? Well, this right could only be invoked when a person is charged or arrested for a crime, the accused cannot also be compelled to testify in the court during the trial because the right to remain silent extends up to the proceedings of his case. The right to remain silent composed of NOT answering any question, NOT to give any comment or statement to any officer or any ordinary person, and NOT to convey anything related or unrelated to the charge.

Now, go back to my question  -”why do we have a right to remain silent in criminal cases?”

This requires some logical thinking rather than pure legal thought.

Answers:    1. It is the duty of the complainant or the government to establish their allegation against the person. The burden of proof is on them who alleged and not on the defense. There is no necessity for the defense to make an advance statement. All the defense will do is to wait on what the prosecution or the government will allege in their complaint.

                  2. It is an intelligent move of the accused to read all allegations first before making any comment or statement. In the absence of knowledge regarding with the complaint, the best way is to say nothing. Besides, the substance of having the right to remain silent is to know the nature of all allegations before answering anything. By your silence, you give yourself a greater advantage of answering only the allegations made against you.

                  3. The logical reason to exercise the right to remain silent is to prevent inconsistencies in the complaint and some other charge sheets. In cases like conspiracy, adultery, bigamy, and others, the accused must know the other testimony of the co-accused before making any frivolous testimony. For example, in case like adultery, the unfaithful wife and the paramour shall be charged together for the crime of adultery; If the wife denies having knowledge of the man [paramour], while the paramour told the police officer that they’re just friends and have no sexual relationship whatsoever, concrete suspicion will strengthened the case against the two persons due to patent inconsistencies.

                 4. The silence of the accused is important because it is not him who proves himself guilty; it is the government’s duty. Neither it is the accused’s assignment to prove his innocence, his innocence is presumed. When you are not required to speak, then why speak? It has been said in a famous musical composition – “you say it best when you say nothing at all”.

                 5. When the accused chose to speak or to offer something though he is given the right to remain silent, the burden of proof will be shifted or transferred to him. Meaning, he will then be required to justify his mistakes in the courts of law, which I think augmented the problems of the accused. The lines which said “anything you said will be used as evidence against you in the courts of law” means the burden shall be transferred from the government to the accused.

                6. Ultimately, I strongly believed that SILENCE IS POWER. The “knowledge is Power” of Francis Bacon will be replaced by my “Silence is Power” as far as criminal procedures is concerned. Silence is really a form of a great power because it can HIDE everything, even the biggest events of human affairs.

 One thing I want all readers to remember is this, silence is a good defense. Let them prove, let them allege, and let me be silent.