But Dare I Use This Right?

To argue that torturing the accused is a far cry from merely asking him to tell the truth, is not as valid as it seems. Even under restraint of the Fifth Amendment, we know that arresting officers do not always merely ask questions. They have been known to use not only physical pressures but the far more effective ones of threat and terror. In the United States today, most persons hearing of their right to silence, laugh and say, "Sure but who's dumb enough to use that right! Not me!" They fear and, in some cases, justly so. But government does not belong to a people who fear to challenge

its abuses.

"I've Nothing To Hide!"

But why not talk freely to the officers if you are innocent? Well, for one thing, if you are innocent, these persons with whom you are chatting cooperatively about yourself are the officers who are in the process of trying to jail you on false charges. Quite humanly, they will do everything in their power to make their charges stick against you. They'd like you to help. None of them are inter-. ested in your welfare in this situation. Secondly, if you are guilty, any sort of confession cripples disasterously attempts at defending you later in court. The privilege applies to the guilty, too. There is no law against trying to defend oneself. Lastly, no one has "nothing to hide". The deviant especially, due to his fugitive position in society, can be linked to all sorts of obscure and not so obscure illegal acts. Freely talking without counsel gives the police additional material with which to prosecute you. Giving the

names of friends can be more of a catastrophe to you than to them: who hasn't someone among his or her friends who hasn't been arrested for just such "crimes"? Further, giving details of your income or that of relatives, has been known to invite police blackmail. Talk to them? There is nothing in the language to be said that could help you at this time except, "I would rather answer that through my attorney, if you don't mind." He'd Talk If He Were Innocent!

Does refusal to testify in court indicate guilt to the jury? Is the defendant really hurting himself in the long run when he takes advantage of this privilege? This depends upon the individual case. However, it should be especially evident to the deviant that testifying before a jury of average citizens could be a risky business. What he says is far less important than how he says it. Plain people have sharp eyes. Whether he actually made a pass at the vice squadder or not, is decided more by lilt of voice and gesture than by testimony. Does refusal to testify comprise an admission of guilt? Legally, no, although the prosecution will try to make it appear so. The defendant may have positively nothing to hide other than the mannerisms which our society assumes to be effeminate, hence "perverted". Those sharp eyes of our neighbors on the jury can be as "wrong as" those of the arresting officers who are paid to spot "queers". Trite to say, completely heterosexual fathers of big families can have limp wrists, rolling eyes and lilting voices, yet have no single act, gesture or conscious homosexual yen in their histories. They can be taken for

page 5