I thought that that right meant that you did not have to say anything to the police if you chose not to. Not that the police had to be silent as well... Is repeatedly talking to a suspect by police going to be considered unethical or even torture? Another unworthy case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada today.
CBC News
The Supreme Court of Canada began hearing arguments Wednesday in a case that seeks to define how police interrogation tactics should square with the Charter's long-protected right to silence. [...]
According to the Supreme Court case summary, Singh told the police that he did not want to talk, that he had nothing to say, that he knew nothing about the shooting, and that he wanted to return to his cell.
The interrogating officers ignored his pleas and pressed on with questioning. Eventually, in the second of two interviews, Singh gave a confession. [...]
Singh launched a similar appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2006, arguing that the judge should have excluded his confession from the evidence because he was compelled to give it. [...]
Compelled? No he wasn't. He gave into the questioning by the officers and confessed to the crime he was accused, and later found guilty of. He gave up his right to silence at that point. That was his choice. He and he alone made that decision.
And we pay them how much for this?
No comments:
Post a Comment