[negidius]

Which means that someone who forgets their passcode because of the stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison could easily be wrongfully convicted. It's a horrible law, even for those who don't care about privacy.

[yongjik]

IANAL but it sounds like this defense would be received about as well as "Your honor, the defendant was in grave stress of being arrested and threatened with years in prison. That's why he completely forgot why and how he parked his car next to Crosby Lake and was walking in the shallow water, carrying an identified bag, at 3am."

[mike_hock]

So basically that just proves the parent poster's point because the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was carrying a bag containing a body and the defendant is under no obligation to remember or justify parking his car by the lake at 3am and walking around.

[bippihippi1]

The defendant didn't admit to a crime and wouldn't open their house to unreasonable search. how suspicious

[blibble]

I am not a fan of the RIP Act (and there's plenty more badness in there)

but playing devil's advocate, without this specific offence the disclosure sections would be completely ineffectual

(remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US)

[miles]

> remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US

Even in the US, the law has changed rather drastically[0]:

“The only way to prevent the government from introducing evidence of the suspect's silence at trial is to explicitly invoke (assert) the right to say nothing. In other words, without being warned by the police or advised by a lawyer, and without even the benefit of the familiar Miranda warnings (which might trigger an ‘I want to invoke my right to be silent!’), the interviewee must apparently say words to the effect of, ‘I invoke my privilege against self-incrimination.’”

[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your...

[flangola7]

If you can't remain silent then what are you supposed to do to not accidentally incriminate yourself?

[barney54]

You say nothing about the alleged crime and instead ask for an attorney.

Remember this important advice—shut the fuck up. https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o

[flangola7]

That video is about US law. The above comment says shutting the fuck up can be used as a negative inference against you in court.

[Paul-Craft]

Not if you get a lawyer, because as soon as your lawyer shows up, they say "My client invokes his/her right to remain silent."

[flangola7]

What right to remain silent are you referring to? Can you link it?

[tristor]

This is one of the reasons why other countries outside the US aren't as free as the US, even though the US is a complete mess too in different ways. Freedom of both speech and silence are not really respected in law anywhere outside the US to the extent that they are in the US.

[WastingMyTime89]

The US has guilty pleas, plea bargaining and entrapment. Next to that the right to avoid self-incrimination, which also exists in a lot of Western country, feels like a footnote.

[vintermann]

The US laws against self-incriminating aren't unique, and many countries go much further. In Norway, you can't be convicted for lying to police and court at all, if it concerns accusations against you or your closest ones (I think that means your spouse and kids/parents in practice), or if it would cause considerable loss of social reputation or welfare of other kinds.

[georgeplusplus]

Define 'many countries'.

[vintermann]

Is it really important? I gave an example.

[kspacewalk2]

Many many countries have rules against drawing adverse inferences from silence, including event Scotland, which is part of the UK.

[midoridensha]

Scotland really should leave the UK, and then rejoin the EU. They'd be better off.

[TeaDude]

They also have apecific devolved laws that you can be arrested for illegal speech in your own home and your children can be interrogated about it.