Note: This article was written a few years ago and has been distributed as a pamphlet.
Should you decide to
exrcise this right, you have the right to
remain silent.
You are, in fact,
ordered to be silent. Those who don't will be
silenced - at least, no one will hear them,
because jails are,by definition, places where
no one is heard.
Of course, if you
refuse to take the best advice, you're free
to speak - but that puts no one under the
obligation to listen. And if no one wants to
listen, who can make them? They're free too.
The misfits who might listen are essentially
silent. They too have a right to free speech,
like you, and a right to remain silent. But
it's hard to hear malcontents and civil
liberty nuts over the sound of TV crime shows
and the politicians who make war on crime for
all the good
people.
Everyone's free here.
Who'd believe the troublemakers who say we
have more people in prison than just about
any other country? Even if it's true, nobody
ever says it on TV. They're like serpents in
the Garden of Eden: they say they want to
spread knowledge - but that knowledge could
taint this paradise for everyone.
But
you too are free to stand on some soapbox
somewhere and harangue people who don't want
to hear you - people who realize that anyone
who has anything important to say is already
on TV or at least owns a big newspaper:
reliable people.
You'll never
hear people like that complaining about
injustice or demanding their "rights."
They're not the kind of kooks who demand to
speak in court, either. When they go
into court, they whisper discreetly into the
ears of their lawyers, who know the judges
and mix with them socially, and know the
civilized way to do things in a free
society.
Those who insist on speaking
when people don't wish to hear them are
boorish, if not actually insane. Sometimes
they are poor, ignorant people whose
illiteracy alone serves to silence them.
They're an embarrassment. It's not polite to
stare - and if you look away, you need not
listen either. So in the end, they are silent
- as silent as if they'd followed the rules
and waived their rights in the first
place.
Besides, even if you are not a
repectable person - even if you are poor or
illiterate or weird, you have the right to a
lawyer: a public defender. You can't
choose one and you probably won't
meet him until just before you go into the
courtroom - but he's a busy man. He works for
the State, and the state doesn't fund public
defenders as well as they do the District
Attorney and the police. So if he seems a
little foggy on
the details of your case (and he'll never get
your name right) remember he's doing the best
he can, and you should be
grateful.
Should you be very stubborn,
you always can demand a trial before a jury
of your peers. Yes, your peers. Your
economic peers, of course, can't afford to
serve on juries, but in America we're all
equal before the law. So that rich lady who
has never worked in her life is now your
peer. Fancy that! And the businessman whose
firm is paying his full salary while he
judges
you - he's your peer too. They may not see it
that way, but technically, it's quite
true.
Whatever you choose, it is still
best to remain silent. Your public defender
will speak more to the prosecutor than to you
or even to the jury - or even to the judge.
They'll talk softly, but if you lisen you can
hear them - telling jokes or chuckling over
old
times, or just discussing the District
Attorney's re-election campaign they're both
working on. It's none of your affair. If
you've waived your rights as you should, and
pled guily to something, you're in
good hands. At least, this is the best you're
going to get. If, however, you were foolish
enough to insist on your innocence, your real
part now is to look like someone the jury
would approve of. That's simple. They approve
of people like themselves, of order and
respectability, prosperity, and of
prosecutors and the police. Any other sort of
juror is always quickly dismissed.
Should you despair of obtaining justice this
way and try to defend yourself (and in doing
so, plant yourself firmly outside the bounds
of sanity) you are defeated. Of
course, you're still free to do so. But court
procedure is very complicated, the language
is obscure and must be used precisely, the
rules about what you can say and do are very
exact. You'll only look dumb, and in the end,
you will be silenced.
Besides, with so
much to lose, you're certain to display some
inappropriate emotion - which a public
defender would never do - he has nothing to
lose. The unwritten rules
on this seem prety rigid: The prosecutor is
free to show righteous indignation, for
instance; and the judge can get irritated or
even make fun (of the defendant, of course)
but the public defender is only permitted to
look sad: defeated. He doesn't look as
prosperous as the others, either. Compare his
suit - maybe he washes it himself. His
business is to smooth the way for everyone
else and if he works hard and doesn't make
too much trouble for his superiors (the judge
and prosecutors) maybe he could land
a job wih the D.A.
The aim of all this
(besides providing employment for thousands
of highly paid professionals) is the
punishment of crime. It works pretty well, if
you never stop to match up who's doing the
real crime with who's doing most of the time.
Although the importers of drugs, the
instigators of such frauds as the Savings and
Loan disaster, and other highly-placed
criminals are too rich to even be arrested
(and serve only minimum sentences in "country
club" prisons if by some fluke they are
tried and convicted), very few nations have
more people
in prison than the U.S.of A. - and those few
practice flagrant Political Repression. No
one can say
we do that.
It's a free country, after
all, and you always have the right to
remain
silent.
