A PERSON'S "right to remain silent" after being arrested will be abolished.

[Haz.]

A PERSON'S "right to remain silent" after being arrested will be abolished.

Anyone reading the thread "Who needs a gun in Australia," will find that crime in Australia has not substancially decreased as the government claims, since the firearms ban. Now, the NSW police are campaigning to have a persons right to remain silent abolished.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...could-be-revoked/story-e6freuzi-1225964137276

Right to silence could be revoked Joe Hildebrand From: The Daily Telegraph December 02, 2010 12:00AM

A PERSON'S "right to remain silent" with impunity after being arrested will be effectively abolished under a police campaign to be taken to the next state election.
Instead of what a person says being used against them in a court, police say a person's refusal to speak should also be able to be used against them in some circumstances.

The NSW Police Association will launch a campaign against the current laws in an effort to pressure both parties ahead of March's poll.

Police say professional criminals are exploiting the right to silence, making it harder for police to obtain convictions.

However, civil libertarians said the move would result in more innocent people in jail.

Police association president Scott Weber said the changes would make it harder for criminals to dodge the law and protect innocent people.

He called on the State Government to adopt laws similar to those in the UK. "The British parliament changed the application of the right to silence over 15 years ago to combat the growing misuse of this right, and to deal with the rise of organised crime and terrorism," Mr Weber said.

"The British model still gives people the right to stay silent but allows for courts to draw an inference of guilt from a person's silence in certain situations."

NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said being pressured to answer questions that might incriminate them would result in countless innocent people going to jail. "It doesn't serve any benefit," he said.

 

[wylde007]

I'm more disturbed by the poll results than I am at the article. That even one person would consider this a "good" idea is deplorable.

That they are CARRYING THE POLL is downright terrifying.

 

[Haz.]

I'm more disturbed by the poll results than I am at the article. That even one person would consider this a "good" idea is deplorable.

That they are CARRYING THE POLL is downright terrifying.

Just goes to show what a bunch of loosers we have become down-under. The younger generation as a whole have been brainwashed by the yuppie teachers who fill our places of learning. The poloticians will be falling over themselves the appease these idiots. Once this is passed and made law we will finally be "A POLICE STATE."

Wont be long and as soon as we walk outside our homes we will hear: "Ve vant to see you papers please."

 

[eye95]

What disturbs me most is that a right that protects individuals from the state can be abolished by a majority vote.

This is the problem with democracy and why I am glad that we do not live in one.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Such a poorly worded poll .. "Should Criminals Lose the Right to Remain Silent"

Apparently, just the mere act of being arrested proves guilt.

 

[Haz.]

Such a poorly worded poll .. "Should Criminals Lose the Right to Remain Silent"

Apparently, just the mere act of being arrested proves guilt.

Yes, I thought that as soon as I read the article.

 

[wrightme]

Such a poorly worded poll .. "Should Criminals Lose the Right to Remain Silent"

Apparently, just the mere act of being arrested proves guilt.

The pollster should be pointed out as "poisoning the well."

 

[sultan62]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...could-be-revoked/story-e6freuzi-1225964137276

Police say professional criminals are exploiting the right to silence, making it harder for police to obtain convictions.

It is not exploiting. It is using it exactly as intended.

 

[eye95]

The once distinctive and pleasant Australian accent has been morphing of late:

"Ve haf vays of makink you talk!"

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

That is insane.

Thank God I am an American.

 

[Haz.]

The once distinctive and pleasant Australian accent has been morphing of late:

"Ve haf vays of makink you talk!"

G-day mate.

My grandchildren sometimes play a game called spot the Aussie whenever I take them down to the big smoke, (Sydney). As the years go by, I'm not hearing many, "There's one Pop" The place truly is chock full of all-sorts? Even the police department is slowly being filled with short statured all-sorts. I'm beginning to seriously think of pulling the pin and coming over to the USA.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

I'm more disturbed by the poll results than I am at the article. That even one person would consider this a "good" idea is deplorable.

That they are CARRYING THE POLL is downright terrifying.

The reason it is ahead in the polls is the LOADED way the question is asked.

It asks if CRIMINALS should lose the right to remain silent. Of course most people think that is perfectly reasonable. What they do not even start to consider is that they would also lose that right. They think it would only apply to criminals and not the rest of the population.

UNTHINKING MORONS.

:cuss: :banghead:

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

G-day mate.

My grandchildren sometimes play a game called spot the Aussie whenever I take them down to the big smoke, (Sydney). As the years go by, I'm not hearing many, "There's one Pop" The place truly is chock full of all-sorts? Even the police department is slowly being filled with short statured all-sorts. I'm beginning to seriously think of pulling the pin and coming over to the USA.

Come on up to the Northern Hemisphere and help us put a bunch of politicians in some very uncomfortable places. If we can stand some of them "up against the wall" we can keep this country as the founders intended.

 

[Citizen]

Oh, lets just immediately go back to Star Chamber courts, and skip the piecemeal approach.

What is a Star Chamber court, you ask? 16th Century England. And, it wasn't just a right to silence violated. You were required to swear an oath--thus you 1) had to answer, and 2) if you didn't answer truthfully, or they found out you lied, or manufactured evidence you lied, they had you on breaking the oath, and 3) you were eternally damned as a Christian for breaking the oath.

I can't imagine there wasn't a penalty for refusing the oath; and I have this vague recollection that the questioning wasn't particularly friendly, although I have no information that torture was involved.

All in violation of the most fundamental and strongest impulse in nature--self-preservation. This is what the right to silence is all about--a person cannot be compelled to jeopardize himself by giving the government ammunition that can be used against him. It is a shocking violation of the conscience of the compelled, and the conscience of the civilized.

Star Chamber is part of the history of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. It is discussed briefly in Miranda vs Arizona.

Three-hundred and some years since the Star Chamber was abolished. Centuries of blood--including the head of Saint Thomas More--to win respect for the right to silence, and some thugs in Australia want to undermine it all and head us back towards barbarism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

 

[Haz.]

Come on up to the Northern Hemisphere and help us put a bunch of politicians in some very uncomfortable places. If we can stand some of them "up against the wall" we can keep this country as the founders intended.

G-day OldCurlyWolf.
Ya know, Im ashamed to say this but its true. Many, but thankfully not all, people down under these days are so stupid. Whenever something happenes to which they dont agree, they immediately phone the talk back radio stations, of which there are many, write letters in to editors complaing about the situation they disagree with and constantly add to the drivel they verbally and in writing spew forth,

"WE SHOULD ALL BE UP IN ARMS OVER THIS!"

I say what?

Dont you . . . UNTHINKING MORONS . . . even realise you have allowed yourselves to be dissarmed by your government???

The only arms you can now be up in is, uselessly waving your arms in the air and the government know thisonly too well.

 

[VAopencarry]

I guess I should remember this when I think how bad it is here in the States.

 

[Citizen]

I guess I should remember this when I think how bad it is here in the States.

If you don't show up here more often, we're gonna have a hard time remembering you!

 

[Daylen]

proof why democracy is a bad idea. Thank the founders for giving us a federal Republic.

 

[Kirbinator]

If I do not have a right to remain silent, must I confess to crimes I did not commit?

Holy cow...That's just a bad idea. It almost hearkens to the police state that is Japan.

 

[Thundar]

What disturbs me most is that a right that protects individuals from the state can be abolished by a majority vote.

This is the problem with democracy and why I am glad that we do not live in one.

+1

Of course certain laws have been passed in this constitutional republic that tread upon fundamental rights as well. That is, after all, what "gun control" is all about.