Why don’t suspects talk? “We’re quick to think: they must be guilty”
A suspect who refuses to answer police questions? They must have something to hide, or so the thinking often goes. Yet innocent suspects can also have good reasons for keeping their mouths shut. Legal researchers Dr Melanie Sauerland and Professor Miet Vanderhallen study why suspects exercise their right to remain silent—and what consequences this may have. Their research also addresses a broader question: how much is the right to remain silent worth if doing so makes you seem guilty from the outset?
Protecting suspects
Suspects in the Netherlands have the right to remain silent, meaning they are not obliged to answer questions from, say, police officers, judges or public prosecutors. “The right to remain silent is one of the most fundamental rights protecting suspects,” says Melanie Sauerland, associate professor of Legal Psychology. “No one is required to contribute to their own conviction.”
In practice, however, keeping quiet is by no means always viewed neutrally. The two researchers discovered this during an earlier study in which they spoke to professionals including police officers, public prosecutors and judges. “We found that they were quick to form opinions about suspects who remained silent,” says Miet Vanderhallen, professor of Legal Psychology. “Apparently it doesn’t take long for them to think: that person must be guilty.”
A troubling paradox
So a suspect has the right to say nothing, but if others interpret their silence as a sign of guilt, how meaningful is that right? This creates a troubling paradox. “If remaining silent means that someone is seen as guilty, perhaps that right offers less protection than the legislature intended,” Sauerland says. At the same time, she understands why suspects who remain silent can frustrate the police, prosecutors and judges. “Particularly in serious criminal cases, where there’s incriminating evidence and the suspect offers no explanation for it.”
Dr. Melanie Sauerland is associate professor of Legal Psychology, chair of the Forensic Psychology section and director of the Graduate School at the Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience. Her areas of expertise include eyewitness testimony, face recognition and witness interviewing. She completed her PhD at the University of Giessen in Germany and has worked at Maastricht University since 2009.
When a situation clearly calls for an explanation, remaining silent could have consequences. “Suppose your blood is found somewhere, or it’s been established that you were at the scene of the crime. If you then refuse to say anything about it, that can later play a role in the case,” Sauerland explains. The silence itself does not constitute evidence of guilt. But if the suspect fails to explain the incriminating circumstances, the judge may take those circumstances into account when assessing the evidence.
Is it better to say nothing?
So why do many suspects decide to keep quiet during questioning? Sauerland and Vanderhallen found it striking that, until recently, this had rarely been examined from the suspects’ perspective. “There’s a lot of research on effective interviewing techniques. But if suspects refuse to talk, that knowledge isn’t much use to you.”
For an earlier study, they interviewed 30 convicted offenders in four prisons in the Netherlands and Belgium. They found that almost all of them had remained silent during their criminal proceedings. What’s more, the prisoners were nearly unanimous in advising other suspects to do the same.
Legal advice or lack of trust
These offenders gave several reasons for why they decided to remain silent. The first was that their lawyer advised them to do so. “If I were arrested, I’d probably keep quiet, too, until I’d spoken to a lawyer,” Sauerland says. “After all, suspects often don’t know the law very well.” Second, some participants said they lacked confidence in how their words would be interpreted. They were concerned, for example, that the police or a judge might interpret their words differently.
But the composition of the research participants may also have played a role. “We interviewed a very specific sample: men who had been sentenced to at least three years in prison,” Vanderhallen says. “Many had also been convicted of involvement in organised crime or an offence involving several people. Talking could therefore mean implicating someone else. They often remained silent to protect themselves or others.”
Prof. dr. Miet Vanderhallen has worked as an assistant professor at Maastricht University’s Faculty of Law since 2008. She is also a professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Antwerp and a visiting professor at Hasselt University. Her research focuses on topics in legal psychology, particularly interviewing juvenile suspects and suspects’ rights.
What about suspects who are acquitted?
The study raised a new question. The suspects involved had often remained silent and were ultimately convicted. What about suspects who were acquitted? Sauerland and Vanderhallen are now trying to gain a clearer picture of this group.
Finding enough respondents proved far from straightforward. “People who have been suspected of a crime but not convicted don’t all hang out in one place,” Vanderhallen says. “And even though it was an anonymous online survey, some former suspects may be reluctant to talk about their experiences.” Preliminary results suggest a more mixed picture among acquitted suspects than among those who were convicted. Some had remained silent, but most denied the allegations against them.
Does the right to remain silent offer enough protection?
Sauerland and Vanderhallen are currently analysing the results. Ultimately, they hope the study will provide a better understanding of what the right to remain silent means in practice. Why do suspects decide to speak up or keep quiet? Are they following their lawyer’s advice? And do they understand the consequences of deciding to say nothing?
The research also touches on a broader question. In Europe, the right to remain silent is intended to protect suspects during criminal proceedings. But does it really provide the intended protection if suspects may experience negative consequences as a result of remaining silent? “Our research suggests there may be gaps in that protection,” Sauerland says. “That’s why we need to keep examining how this right operates in practice.”
Text: Romy Veul