You Have the Right to Remain Silent

You have a right to remain innocent is a book by James Duane which explores how one should respond to the police or any government agent in the event of an arrest. Duane uses case studies to show how innocent people got incriminated by their own statements and confessions to the police and end up being jailed, some only to be proven innocent much later. The book is written at quite an appropriate time when there is rampant arrest on citizens most of which are of no concrete reasons. The book is written in simple vocabulary that’s easy for anyone to understand. The book, however, lacks a definite audience due to its tone and focus on content. Thus its relation on how lay people interact with authorities is not quite achieved.

The book gives us a glimpse of how the police and the American justice systems work to derive information they want to hear not necessarily what is true, just to win a case and what citizens must do to protect themselves from this. He talks about how police can be deceptive when trying to get information from a suspect. He gives us an example of how Nga Truong a sixteen year old ended up falsely pleading guilty of the murder of her son (Duane, 29). This came after a lengthy interrogation with the police. The police had promised to help her and that since she was juvenile, she would only face minimal punishment. Contrary to these promises, Nga was tried and convicted as an adult and spent 3 years or more in jail until the charges were dropped for illegal interrogation and lack of evidence.

Duane states that too many criminal laws have been set up that one could easily commit a crime without them knowing it’s a crime. He further states that these laws are just clumsily put across and that not much thought is given to them before implementation. In his book, he states that it’s so bad that the average American commits approximately three felonies a day. “That is why you cannot listen to your conscience when faced by a police officer and think ‘I have nothing to hide” (Duane, 22). The author further states that police only choose to go by what makes a case easier for them in recorded interrogations. Many times, only sections of the interrogations are presented in court or only what the police have to say just in case the audio is faulty. Too much talking would lead to incriminating one’s self or just telling the police what they want to hear just to get out of a situation only to end up being a victim and getting jailed, like in the case of Lowrey or Cotton.

The book is divided into three sections with the first one being “Don’t talk to the police” a statement easier said than done. “Fortunately, there’s one very simple way to eliminate the possibility of police misunderstanding your statement altogether don’t talk to the police,” (Duane, 62). However, he insists on the reason behind it being “Over criminalization” of the criminal justice system we have. The book insists that even when one feels they are innocent, they should never say a word to the police. But this is never that simple, and Duane may have overlooked how circumstances really are at that time of arrest. Silence in many instances is always taken as consent. After driving this point home, Duane goes ahead and states how hard it is to achieve this and that it is okay to say certain specific things instead of remaining silent. This last piece of advice feels quite late and misplaced especially for anyone who did not read the book to the very end.

Duane’s main point in this book that comes out strongly is “Do not talk to the police or any other government agent in the event of an arrest.” Throughout the book, he goes ahead to stress on this point using different approaches, with real cases being his major tool. This makes the book dull and predictable. Therefore, in the end, one feels there was no need of going through the whole book. However how one goes about asserting silence is the real big deal. According to Duane, one has to speak up first in order to remain silent. But what one has to say again really matters (Duane, 7). In his book, Duane states that the only instances one should talk are:  “If a police officer encounters you in one of those moments, he or she has every right to ask you two simple questions. Memorize these two questions so you will not be tempted to answer any others:  Who are you?  What are you doing right here, right now?” (Duane, 7). All this should be answered in the present and any temptation to say more beyond this should not be entertained. Any effort by the police to strike a conversation should be politely declined and how to decline this brings us to the next segment of the book. The second segment of the book is “Do not plead the fifth.” That is, do not ask to remain silent nor explain why you want to remain silent. Duane states that the way one assert their right to remain silent is real matters. Looking at the case of Gillman Long who, when questioned about sexual activity with a minor, said “I don’t want to incriminate myself. I would like to stop talking.”  The prosecutor reasoned that because he said he didn’t want to incriminate himself, it meant “any sort of statement as to that topic that they are being asked for would get them in trouble.” (Duane, 96-108). Partly, because of his statement, he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In this section, Duane talks about how exercising silence or claiming to exercise silence can be equally dangerous since the right to silence nowadays has limited protection from by the Supreme Court (Duane, 89-93). Majority of the courts nowadays believe that silence means guilt. And as much as remaining silent is being advocated for by the author, neither will it bring about discrimination on the part of the police.  The last section talks about using one’s right to a lawyer which is the sixth amendment. Plead the sixth (Duane, 111). This should not come as a polite request though. One should be very assertive about this and not even debate with the police or ask them for their thoughts or opinion on this. Duane refers to the case of Tio Sessoms who instead of expressing his desire to get his lawyer, he expressed what his father had asked him to do (Duane, 116). It is only 13 years later that the lawyer managed to prove that indeed the 16 year old had asked for a lawyer but how then does one go about requesting a lawyer? According to Duane, 2016  

“ There is no need to be rude and at the same time, no need to sound polite in this request, as most people fear sounding a little too rude or disrespectful if they make their request sound” (Duane, 114).  

The author advices that the best way to exercise this is by persistently using these words “I want a lawyer” (Duane, 113-115). No officer will deny you this right, especially once they realize you know your rights. However, this part may be too wishful since not everyone can afford a lawyer. More or less, this bit of the book only appeals to the middle and upper class in society who mainly are the people who can afford a lawyer. Duane aims at bringing an end to the double standards in our justice systems where only those in the know can protect themselves from legal systems that are set to catch the ignorant and innocent (Duane, 4). This is a very important and sensitive issue in society that needs to be looked into. It also contains information one needs to know when dealing with instances of police arrest.

If this is the case, why then doesn’t he deal with changing the system first? Address ways on how the police can be prevented from using these deceptive measures to get false information? Information on a book is just not enough to change the state of things. So such has to be worked on both parties involved in this crisis, the citizens and the justice systems.

Lastly, Duane does not really want to hit the nail on the head. He writes in double standards, not wanting to incriminate the police and at the same time showing how cunning and deceptive police can be in getting information. At some point, Duane congratulates the police for their bravery in dealing with crime. He tries to take away this fault from the police by saying that they only do what they are trained to do (Duane, 27). Thus the message he intends to communicate becomes a bit clouded and one wonders if then that is the work of the police why then not cooperate. He does not come out so sharp and convincing. 

Reference

Duane, J. J. (2016). You have the right to remain innocent: What police officers tell their children about the Fifth Amendment .