沉默的混乱

P. Schwikkard
{"title":"沉默的混乱","authors":"P. Schwikkard","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article looks at the status and application of the right to remain silent in a number of common law jurisdictions. It explores the multiple rationales said to underlie the right to remain silent and concludes that there is only one that withstands scrutiny, namely, that the right to remain silent assists in preventing the abuse of public power. As such the right is instrumental in nature and infringements of the right need to be assessed against this rationale. Accordingly, if appropriate safeguards are in place minor encroachments such as the drawing of adverse inferences from silence should not create undue concern. However, given both the normative and instrumental value of the right to remain silent, it would be foolish to undermine the right in the absence of clear utilitarian gains for doing so and infringements should never be viewed as justified in the absence of appropriate safeguards against the abuse of public power.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Muddle of Silence\",\"authors\":\"P. Schwikkard\",\"doi\":\"10.2202/1554-4567.1088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article looks at the status and application of the right to remain silent in a number of common law jurisdictions. It explores the multiple rationales said to underlie the right to remain silent and concludes that there is only one that withstands scrutiny, namely, that the right to remain silent assists in preventing the abuse of public power. As such the right is instrumental in nature and infringements of the right need to be assessed against this rationale. Accordingly, if appropriate safeguards are in place minor encroachments such as the drawing of adverse inferences from silence should not create undue concern. However, given both the normative and instrumental value of the right to remain silent, it would be foolish to undermine the right in the absence of clear utilitarian gains for doing so and infringements should never be viewed as justified in the absence of appropriate safeguards against the abuse of public power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Commentary on Evidence\",\"volume\":\"142 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Commentary on Evidence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Commentary on Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

本文探讨了保持沉默权在若干英美法系司法管辖区的现状和适用情况。它探讨了据称构成保持沉默权利基础的多种理由,并得出结论认为,只有一种理由经得起审查,即保持沉默的权利有助于防止滥用公共权力。因此,这项权利在性质上是工具性的,需要根据这一理由对侵犯这项权利的行为进行评估。因此,如果有适当的保障措施,诸如从沉默中得出不利推论之类的轻微侵犯不应引起过分的关注。然而,考虑到保持沉默的权利的规范和工具价值,在没有明确的功利利益的情况下破坏这种权利是愚蠢的,在没有适当的防止滥用公共权力的保障措施的情况下,永远不应将侵权视为合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Muddle of Silence
This article looks at the status and application of the right to remain silent in a number of common law jurisdictions. It explores the multiple rationales said to underlie the right to remain silent and concludes that there is only one that withstands scrutiny, namely, that the right to remain silent assists in preventing the abuse of public power. As such the right is instrumental in nature and infringements of the right need to be assessed against this rationale. Accordingly, if appropriate safeguards are in place minor encroachments such as the drawing of adverse inferences from silence should not create undue concern. However, given both the normative and instrumental value of the right to remain silent, it would be foolish to undermine the right in the absence of clear utilitarian gains for doing so and infringements should never be viewed as justified in the absence of appropriate safeguards against the abuse of public power.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信