> often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech
I don't see that in the comments you cite - nothing related to totaliterianism, unrestricted free speech, or comparison to the US. The comments just look like critiques of some laws related to speech, similar to critiques of US laws. Maybe I misunderstand.
I don't have a source handy, I can find one later if you desire. During Melbourne's lockdowns there was consistent criticism from US based commenters about the lack of freedoms in Australia.
funnily enough, the USA has much less protective laws against self incrimination than e.g. Denmark. In Denmark, you, as charged, may lie on the stand however much you please.
Something like 95% of criminal cases are resolved with plea deals and not trials, and legal representation from public defenders has very limited resources.
Cash bail results in many people imprisoned without trial: After arrest, the court requires bail. Poor people can't afford it, so they are jailed until trial, which can be over a year. The impacts go beyond the (very serious) loss of freedom: They lose jobs, their family loses income, dependents (children, elderly) lose caregivers.
Firstly, though I see the concept behind cash bail I don't agree with it. But people has a misconception of the likely result of removing it.
Judges now, don't need or required to use cash bails, they choose to, they can release people without cash bail now. either into the person's own recognizance, or even into the care of others.
If a judge doesn't feel the person is likely to return to their following court date, and they can't leverage financial burden as a means to insure it, they are likely just to forego the process and hold them.
Both the California and US constitutions guarantee a right to a speedy trial, and California criminal code has specific provisions on how quickly trials must begin. Who is holding the California government responsible for this? What an outrage.
Wowzer, right. That is...pretty compelling. And incredibly illegal. Does California not know it doesn't have a right to just incarcerate people for no official reason?
> Shutting up and refusing to answer a question makes it very clear that you have something to hide
It really doesn't, at least in a court of law. Although if the police are interrogating you, they will almost certainly try to convince you that it does.
I don't think you're ever required to any answer any questions from the police, whether avoiding self-incrimination or otherwise. You're only required to answer a question in court, and even then only if the answer wouldn't be self-incriminating (or a few other narrow exceptions I think; the concept of the court not being allowed to compel someone to testify against their spouse is a common trope in media, although I'm honestly not certain how accurate it's portrayed). You also aren't required to take the stand when accused of a crime; while you can choose to do so, you're also free to just have your lawyer make your case via the questioning of witnesses instead of having to answer questions directly yourself.
That said, my understanding is that you're _not_ allowed to plead the 5th if the answer wouldn't actually be self-incriminating, so it's a weird thing where you're only allowed to not answer a question by essentially stipulating that you _did_ do something illegal that would be disclosed if you answered truthfully. If they can prove you weren't actually avoiding answering due to self-incrimination but plead the 5th anyways, I'm pretty sure you can be charged with contempt of court. Having never been on a criminal jury, I can't say I know exactly how it would play out in deliberations, but it's hard for me to imagine that it doesn't affect things at all; even if a jury isn't technically allowed to consider it an admission of guilt, from a legal perspective pleading the 5th seems pretty explicitly either a non-legally-admissible admission of guilt or a crime of contempt of court in itself, so I don't see how the law isn't basically forcing the jury to conclude that you've committed a crime one way or another. The question would then boil down to which of the two crimes the jury thought you had committed (the one you were accused of or contempt of court), and while they're not supposed to be deciding the question of the latter, it seems likely that the jury's view will be tainted by this.
Of course, all of this only applies if you did actually commit a crime; if you genuinely didn't commit any crimes, you wouldn't be lying under oath when stating that instead of pleading the 5th. The jury still might think you did commit the crime though and are just doubling down on lying under oath to try to hide that, though.
If you choose to plead the fifth, the prosecution is absolutely forbidden from bringing that up the courtroom, much less using it to insinuate your guilt.
Any lawyer in the US will tell you not to speak to the police or prosecutor. At all.
Not true. In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, despite being nationally televised to millions, the prosecutor questioned why he didn't answer questions post arrest
And the judge immediately halted the trial, reamed out the lawyer as being unimaginably unprofessional, and threatened that he might toss the whole case if the prosecutor ever insinuated something like that again.
yes, and there is a high chance that with either a less vigilant judge, or a less caring defence (see: public defender), it would not have been stopped.
The point is: this case was televised to millions and he STILL questioned it.
here's one from earlier in the week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459
they're pretty common, here's another one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773