User:Jesscampos/sandbox

This will be the shared Sandbox for the article Self-Incrimination.

Drafts:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves in a crime. The Amendment reads:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

Additionally, under the Miranda Rights, a person also has the right to remain silent while in police custody so as to not reveal any incriminating information. In order to invoke this constitutional right to remain silent, a person must explicitly and unambiguously tell officers that he/she is exercising this right to remain silent. Therefore, staying silent without a prior exclamation that you are exercising this constitutional right does not invoke the right.

It is also important to note that the Fifth Amendment protects certain types of evidence, specifically testimonial evidence, which are statements that are spoken by the person in question that are made under oath. For a list of other different types of evidence, refer to Evidence.

Mnv14 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Update (Thurs. April 5, 10:05pm): Mnv14 (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Indian Law

"In India, under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, the defendant has the right against self-incrimination, but witnesses are not given the same right."

A defendant must be informed of their rights before making any statements that may incriminate them. Defendants must not be compelled to give any statements. In the case that a defendant is pressured into giving a statement that is self-incriminating, the statement will not be admissible in a court of law. The Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Constitution give defendants the Right to Silence, i.e., the right to withhold self-incriminating information to authorities. The defendant must inform the authorities that he or she is exercising their Right to Silence; withholding information is not considered using their right to withhold information that can potentially be self-incriminating. In order to exercise their right to remain silent, the defendant must verbally and clearly state that they are doing so. For example, a defendant can say, "I am exercising my right to remain silent and will not be answering any further questions." Article 20 (3) does not pertain to those who made a confession willingly without being intimidated or coerced into making such statement.

~~~~ (tildes aren't working Jessyca Campos 3/26 12:10am)

Update (Sunday April 8, 9:17pm): ~~~~

Missing Citations

Scots Law

On January 25, 2018 the law in Scotland changed in regards to people being detained by police. These changes only affect people who are arrested after January 25, 2018. Those who are arrested have 'the right to remain silent' and are not obligated to answer questions asked by police. However, although someone being detained by police does not need to answer questions regarding the crime they are accused of, it is mandatory for detainees to answer basic questions of identity such as: name, date of birth, address, and nationality.

Megallicchio (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Self-Incrimination

There are 108 countries and jurisdictions that currently have Miranda-type warnings which include 'the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel'. In some countries, there is more explicit language on how information will be used in legal proceedings, as well as reasons for arrest and detention by law enforcement. These laws are not uniform across the world, however members of the European Union have developed their laws around the EU's guide regarding Miranda-type law.

Megallicchio (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Indian Law

"In India, under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, the defendant has the right against self-incrimination, but witnesses are not given the same right."

A defendant must be informed of their rights before making any statements that may incriminate them. Defendants must not be compelled to give any statements. In the case that a defendant is pressured into giving a statement that is self-incriminating, the statement will not be admissible in a court of law. The Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Constitution give defendants the Right to Silence, i.e., the right to withhold self-incriminating information to authorities. Article 20 (3) does not pertain to those who made a confession willingly without being intimidated or coerced into making such statement.

~~~~ (tildes aren't working Jessyca Campos 3/26 12:10am)

Individual Proposals:

Maia's ideas:

• Cited Plagiarism

The Wikipedia training modules listed paraphrasing as the best way to relate information found in sources into a Wikipedia article. In contrast, throughout the article on “Self-Incrimination,” the editors used direct quotes from sources to explain the topic as well as various aspect of it. Due to many of these direct quotes using technical terms, the information conveyed may be hard for many readers to fully comprehend. Therefore, as an editor, I will read the sources and, once it is fully understood, then paraphrase the information in easy-to-understand language. As for items that require direct quotes, such as the part about the “Fifth Amendment,” a brief explanation of the quote should be given afterwards to ensure comprehensibility.  There are also many instances in which quotation marks are not placed around direct quotes, which should be edited.

Additionally, some of the information provided is not properly cited. For example, the editor provided a technical definition for the term “incriminating statement” without linking to a source and also claimed that some countries do not recognize a certain right without providing further details or a source.

• Missing Information

Information that is missing from the article is the difference between demonstrative evidence and testimonial evidence and how these two types of evidence relate to self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. For instance, according to Solan and Tiersma, witnesses cannot be forced to provide testimonial evidence that incriminates themselves. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment does not protect witnesses from demonstrative evidence that may be self-incriminating. This is an important distinction to make when discussing what counts as self-incrimination.

Mnv14 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Marisa's Ideas

Missing citations- The page has several sentences and claims that are either not cited properly or not cited at all. One contribution I will make is to find reliable sources for these claims, and then properly cite them. Dispute about direct vs. indirect self-incrimination- In the talk page, there is some confusion on direct vs. indirect self-incrimination that has been potentially explained incorrectly in the article. For this, I will try to clear up the confusion by doing research and finding reliable sources. From there, I will link the sources. This part has not been edited since 2011, so I believe that there could still be an issue regarding this topic. Potential idea: There is request in the talk page about further explanation of self-incrimination; i.e. "why someone should not be required to incriminate themselves"- was one suggestion. Given my other group member's ideas, maybe this is something that we would be able to expand on in the article. Megallicchio (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Gaby's Ideas =

There are many instances where the author of the article does not cite. There are times when they are explaining something but do not paraphrase or use quotations but take credit for these thoughts. That I am sure existed before the author of this wiki page spoke about them. The whole section on Scot's law does not have any citation; while it is a short section there has to be somewhere that information originated from. Overall I would work on making sure that this article was properly edited and cited.

Cited Garner, Bryan (2014-05-09). Black's Law Dictionary (Deluxe Tenth Edition ed.). West Group. ISBN 9780314621306.Gabs418 (talk)

Jessyca's proposal:

The article does not have proper citations. I would make sure that the citations are from credible sources. I suggest checking if the information is up to date. A lot has changed since the last time this article was updated. I think we can add a lot of the interesting information that we have read in the articles thus far and can contribute to the quality of this article. I would add more content to the page and change the table of contents. I would also suggest changing the formatting (e.g., complete capitalization of phrases to be defined).

One of the things I noticed about this article is the writing style; the article loses credibility with its unclear writing. It seems that the editor used close paraphrasing along with phrases that did not convey information throughout the article. For example, in the United States Law section, the editor wrote: "Miranda warnings must be given before there is any "questioning ..." the common phrasing is that suspects should be read their "miranda rights." Changing 'rights' to 'warning' is an example of close paraphrasing that serves as a red flag to check the rest of the article for more close paraphrasing. I would suggest looking closely at the writing in the article to dilute any if not all of the close paraphrasing.