Plead the Fifth?

Court Case Debate:

A few decades ago, a kidnapping and sexual assault occurred and a man was arrested in his home. He was later taken to the police station and was identified by the victim, and taken into an interrogation room. He later confessed to the charges and signed written confession. The case was presented in court and his defending lawyer said that the man was not read his rights:

- You have the right to remain silent. (pleading the fifth)
- Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law.

And that his confession should be waived and should not be used against him as evidence!

Should his rights (pleading the fifth) overpower his crime (confession)?

Why should a person who does not respect other people's rights be entitled to any rights himself 😳

Originally posted by: zorrro

Why should a person who does not respect other people's rights be entitled to any rights himself 😳

But then how can you waive the person his rights and still have him abide by the law...

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

But then how can you waive the person his rights and still have him abide by the law...

let chronology of events decide whose rights assume priority 😃

Well, a crime committed is a crime committed... it doesnt matter whether the convicted confesses or remains calm. 😕

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

Well, a crime committed is a crime committed... it doesnt matter whether the convicted confesses or remains calm. 😕

However, I too have read somewhere that, a convicted.. even if he confesses elsewhere but the court of law, that confession isnt taken, as an evidence.. I'm not sure about this.

But yes, what matters is what you say in the court of law, and..a solid evidence by a witness.

Indeed, the crime committed is not in question, but the rights he is abide by law are questioned cause if the same law is going to provide evidence against him and give him sentence on that basis then they must also read him his rights before arresting him!

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

Indeed, the crime committed is not in question, but the rights he is abide by law are questioned cause if the same law is going to provide evidence against him and give him sentence on that basis then they must also read him his rights before arresting him!

I am actually a little confused 😆 ...

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

I am actually a little confused 😆 ...

I think right to speech comes into picture now 😛 ..confessing/not confessing even if it provides evidence at face-value isnt considered... a man, even if it isnt a fundamental right, has a "right to speak" . It cannot be taken as evidence unless he does so in court of law. i hope I am not losing connection with what your saying 😆

If the man was read his rights when he was arrested by the police, and then he decided to confess, then that confession can be used against him in the court of law as evidence. But since he was not read his rights, his confession can not be used against him in the court of law. Thus my question remains, should his rights over power his confession?

I do not understand the need for right to remain silent after someone has already committed a crime 😕 What about sting operations carried out before someone commits a crime? Doesnt he deserve a right to be warned in that case? And what about the third degree methods adopted to make a person confess? Where does the right to remain silent vanish in such cases?

Originally posted by: zorrro

I do not understand the need for right to remain silent after someone has already committed a crime 😕

What about sting operations carried out before someone commits a crime?
Can you explain this in detail...

Doesnt he deserve a right to be warned in that case?
This question seems to be related to the above, so I will wait till you explain further...

And what about the third degree methods adopted to make a person confess?
I do not support the interrogation techniques that is used on people for the purpose of confession but again it's backed up by law! The good cop/bad cop will always remain open for debate...

Where does the right to remain silent vanish in such cases?
If he was read his rights while he was arrested and then brought into a cell for interrogation and later he confessed then such rights hold true. But since he was not read his rights at the time he was arrested that confession can not be used against him.