To be clear, this evidence was necessary to convict the man. He clearly was the drunken driver of the car that killed the little girl and injured the mother. The court had to REINSTATE his conviction after it was overturned by the appeals court. IOW, he was going to get away with killing a little girl and walking away from it.
Is that what we want?
This evidence was not used to convict of the crime. It was used to distinguish between whether he had shown callous disregard or had shown simple disregard (by his drunken driving.)
It seems to me that it would have made a difference in the level of charge against him (manslaughter) and in the punishment. Not at all in his guilt or innocence. That was a given.
You tell me why it’s wrong for the police at the scene to be asked about the defendant’s behavior/demeanor while a woman was screaming in the background and a child was dying or had died? The jury gets to infer what it wants.
The drunkenness and speed of auto were more telling signs of callous disregard, and I’m sure they were also the highlighted FACTS. The silence seems like only an additional circumstantial tidbit that wasn’t even crucial...or even necessary. I don’t want the guy walking over something like that when there’s no doubt he is the guy who had murdered a little girl.
Yes.
For I believe it is better that the guilty are set free than that the innocent should suffer [for the failure to do so].
By destroying the right to remain silent you assuredly make future innocents suffer.
This is indeed the foundation of our own classical jurisprudence [link]:
In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation is the principle that:Moreover, to intentionally remove the right to silence is blatantly contrary to our Constitution, and to remove it is to directly act against that Constitution which guarantees it."It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.It is worthwhile to note that the actual numbers are not generally seen as important, so much as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case". Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.
This evidence was not used to convict of the crime. It was used to distinguish between whether he had shown callous disregard or had shown simple disregard (by his drunken driving.)
The drunkenness and speed of auto were more telling signs of callous disregard, and I’m sure they were also the highlighted FACTS. The silence seems like only an additional circumstantial tidbit that wasn’t even crucial...or even necessary. I don’t want the guy walking over something like that when there’s no doubt he is the guy who had murdered a little girl.
This is contrary to what you have agreed/admitted; to wit: this evidence was necessary to convict the man.
I therefore reject this argument in total.
I agree with that for the most part. It’s not my intent to see the guy walk here. I don’t want him forced to talk before Miranda as it pertains to guilt. As for sentencing, I see no value in reviewing his silence. One person might talk profusely feigning compassion and be a psychopath. Another guy may sit silently feeling extremely remorseful.
Do you give the verbal psychopath a lighter sentence?