---------------
by TPO (Henock Gugsa)
Yesterday, June 1st, the Supreme Court of the United States almost did away with Miranda Rights by ruling that "a suspect has a duty to speak up and say he does not want to talk." In other words, the burden of proof for guilt or innocence is being "shifted" to the suspect rather than the police. Aside from the incongruity of the logic (classic oxymoron juxtaposition) and the unfairness of the position, one must be aware of the regressive move toward tyranny and injustice here.
It seems that the law is going to be opening its ears more to circumstantial evidence and less to the human factors that may come into play. The law is now becoming literally blind and is too lazy to reach the truth by digging further and treating each case on its own merit. Let us just call it the blanket rule of an intellectually rigid judiciary system.
But, stop. Let me think. Weren't we taught that "Silence is golden." And yet, I don't recall being told that I have to announce my silence in any fashion except by just not uttering a word, not even a sound. Furthermore, what about special and "extenuating" circumstances? How, for example, do we treat the deaf and mute, or the simply terrified and traumatized? Speaking for myself, even the thought of being considered a suspect is unnerving and unsettling enough. And we all know that, anyway, every emotional reaction may be used against you during an interview by the police. So why utter a word? ... why give them more ammo against you? If you are a suspect, the police will not necessarily be looking out for your interests.
So to come back to the crux of the matter: Since when is silence a crime? Oh, yes. They did crucify an innocent lamb named Jesus of Nazareth many many years ago for being silent. They said His silence confirmed [His] guilt then also. Wouldn't that be the case even now whether or not a suspect announced his silence by speaking up?!
No comments:
Post a Comment