Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:06:42.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Silence as Evidence

from Part III - On Evidential Inferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2022

By
Hock Lai Ho
Edited by
Jordi Ferrer Beltrán  and
Carmen Vázquez
Jordi Ferrer Beltrán
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Carmen Vázquez
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Get access

Summary

This paper examines the position taken and the discourse on the right of silence in Singapore. By position, I mean what the law is and how it got there. By discourse, I mean how officials talk when they go about defending legislative amendments or praising the current law. Does the experience in Singapore reveal a distinctly Asian perspective to the right of silence? The study of Singapore will be used as a springboard for theoretical reflections on the right in general. I hope to illustrate or instantiate this general point: while evidential reasoning is primarily theoretical; it is legally regulated by rules that are often shaped by practical – including political and ethical – considerations.

Keywords

Right of silencecriminal lawAsian perspectivetrialprobative value
Type
Chapter
Information
Evidential Legal Reasoning
Crossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions
 , pp. 171 - 197
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, R. J. and Pardo, M. S. (2019). Relative Plausibility and Its Critics, International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23 (1–2), 5–59.Google Scholar
Amaya, A. (2015). The Tapestry of Reason, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Amaya, A. (2009). Inference to the Best Explanation, in Kaptein, H., Prakken, H. and Verheij, B. (eds.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories and Logic, Burlington: Ashgate, 135–59.Google Scholar
Ames, R. T. (2011) Confucian Role Ethics. A Vocabulary, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, R. T. and Rosemont, H. Jr. (1998). The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation, New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1825). A Treatise on Judicial Evidence, Dumont, E. ed., London: J. W. Paget.Google Scholar
Brindley, E. (2011). Moral Autonomy and Individual Sources of Authority in the Analects, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 38 (2), 257–73.Google Scholar
Bronaugh, R. (1998). Is There a Duty to Confess?, American Philosophical Association Newsletter, 98, 86–7.Google Scholar
Chan, J. (1997). Hong Kong, Singapore, and ‘Asian Values’: An Alternative View, Journal of Democracy, 8 (2), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S. K. (2000a). Cultural Issues and Crime, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 12: 1–25.Google Scholar
Chan, S. K. (2000b). Rethinking the Criminal Justice System of the Singapore for the 21th Century, in Singapore Academy of Law, The Singapore Conference: Leading the Law and Lawyers into the New Millennium @2020, Singapore: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Chan, S. K. (1996). The Criminal Process – The Singapore Model, Singapore Law Review, 17: 433–503.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dolinko, D. (1986). Is There a Rationale for the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, UCLA Law Review, 33, 1063–148.Google Scholar
Donagan, A. (1984). The Right Not to Incriminate Oneself, Social Philosophy and Policy, 1 (2): 137–48.Google Scholar
Friendly, H. J. (1968). The Fifth Amendment Tomorrow: The Case for Constitutional Change, University of Cincinnati Law Review, 37 (4): 671–726.Google Scholar
Gerstein, R. S. (1979a). The Self-Incrimination Debate in Great Britain, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 27 (1), 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstein, R. S. (1979b). The Demise of Boyd: Self-Incrimination and Private Papers in the Burger Court, UCLA Law Review, 27 (2), 343–97.Google Scholar
Gerstein, R. S. (1971). Punishment and Self-Incrimination, American Journal of Jurisprudence, 16, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstein, R. S. (1970). Privacy and Self-Incrimination, Ethics, 80 (2), 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. S. (1999). The Privilege’s Last Stand: The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and the Right to Rebel Against the State, Brooklyn Law Review, 65 (3), 627–716.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, R. K. (1981). Silence as a Moral and Constitutional Right, William and Mary Law Review, 23 (1), 15–71.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. (1970). Ideology in Criminal Procedure or a Third ‘Model’ of the Criminal Process, The Yale Law Journal, 79 (3), 359–417.Google Scholar
Ho, H. L. (2015). The Legal Concept of Evidence, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, in https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/.Google Scholar
Ho, H. L. (2013). The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Right of Access to a Lawyer. A Comparative Assessment, Singapore Academy Law Journal, 25, 826–46.Google Scholar
Ho, H. L. (2012). ‘National Values on Law and Order’ and the Discretion to Exclude Wrongfully Obtained Evidence, Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law, 2012, 232–56.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1640). Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, Tonnies, F., ed., 1889, London: Simpkin, Marshall.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan, Oakeshott, M. ed., New York: Touchstone, 1962.Google Scholar
Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Some Fundamental Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, The Yale Law Journal, 23 (1), 16–59.Google Scholar
Hohfeld, W. N. (1917). Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, The Yale Law Journal, 26 (8), 710–70.Google Scholar
Jayasuriya, K. (1999). Corporatism and Judicial Independence Within Statist Legal Institutions in East Asia, in Jayasuriya, K. (ed.), Law, Capitalism and Power in Asia: The Rule of Law and Legal Institutions, London-New York: Routledge, 173–204.Google Scholar
Kane, P. V. (1977). History of Darmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediœval Religious and Civil Law in India), Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.Google Scholar
Lee, K. Y. (1990). Address by the Honourable the Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 2, 155–60.Google Scholar
Leng, R. (2001). Silence Pre-trial, Reasonable Expectations and the Normative Distortion of Fact-Finding, International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 5 (4), 240–56.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. D. E. (1988). Bentham and the Right of Silence, The Bentham Newsletter, 12, 37–42.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. D. E. (1990). Bentham’s View of the Right of Silence, Current Legal Problems, 43 (1), 135–57.Google Scholar
Packer, H. (1964). Two Models of the Criminal Process, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113 (1), 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packer, H. (1968). The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, M. (2017). Constitutional Dialogue and the Rule of Law, Hong Kong Law Journal, 47, 505–24.Google Scholar
Quirk, H. (2017). The Rise and Fall of the Right of Silence, Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ristroph, A. (2009). Respect and Resistance in Punishment Theory, California Law Review, 97 (2), 601–32.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal Evidence, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosemont, H. Jr. (2015). Against Individualism. A Confucian Rethinking of the Foundations of Morality, Politics, Family and Religion, London: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Rosemont, H. Jr. and Ames, R. T. (2016). Confucian Role Ethics. A Moral Vision for the 21st Century, Taipei: National Taiwan University Press.Google Scholar
Rosemont, H. Jr. and Ames, R. T. (2008). Family Reverence as the Source of Consummatory Conduct, Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy, 7 (1), 9–19.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2008a). On the Supposed Jury-Dependence of Evidence Law, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155 (1), 165–202.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2008b). In Defense of Rule-Based Evidence Law: And Epistemology Too, Episteme, 5 (3), 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanmugam, K. (2012). The Rule of Law in Singapore, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, Dec. 2012, 357–65.Google Scholar
Sim, M. (2015). Why Confucius’ Ethics Is a Virtue Ethics, in Besser-Jones, L. and Slote, M. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Virtue Ethics, New York-London: Routledge: 63–76.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (2018). When Does Evidence Suffice for Conviction?, Mind, 127 (508), 1193–218.Google Scholar
Tan, Y. L. (2005). Criminal Procedure, Vol. 2, Singapore: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Thomas III, G. C. and Leo, R. A. (2012). Confessions of Guilt, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (1981). A Right to Do Wrong, Ethics, 92 (1), 21–39.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×