Research Paper on:
Abolishing the Right to Remain Silent

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
a fair trial, backed up not only in constitutional law and common law, but also through the Convention on Human rights, and is seen as a foundation of the system.  However, there have also been changes in recent, it is argued that these were necessary to protect the integrity of the criminal justice process, to aid the conviction of the  guilty and thus protect the innocent. Yet we may also argue that this is an undermining if the freedom and liberty that has been granted to the individual, and start  to move the burden of proof. The removal of the right to silence has been controversial. In reality this is not a total abolition, but a limitation, which may be  seen as an abolition as it allows an inference to be used by the prosecution in order to cast doubt on the witness. When we consider the rights of  the law, the right to silence, without any negative inference being made can be seen to date back to the seventeenth century, it has been seen as a basic right,  hand in hand with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the protection of the individual against state through a series of checks and balances. The system was  seen as sound as if a defendant was guilt the prosecution should be able to build a string case against the defendant without forcing them to give evidence. In many  countries, such as the United States, this is protected in a more comprehensive manner, such as with the forth amendment, where an individual is not under any obligation to incriminate  themselves. In allowing the courts and the persecution to use the fact the defendant did not say anything at the time of arrest, or has not said any thing