The extremely adversarial approach to "justice" is an issue specific to the US (and probably some other countries), and is not universal.

Do definitely have a lawyer present, but whether or not to talk to the police varies a lot per country. Personally, I think that not talking to the police being such vital advice in the US, is a strong condemnation of how the American system works. People should be able to trust the police, and the police and prosecutors should be working to do justice, not merely to lock up as many people as possible. Every innocent person behind bars is a failure of the system.

I respectfully disagree that this is specific to the US. I think it has been an issue everywhere throughout history.

Don't get me wrong. It's a great thing when a country overcomes it and manages to create a fair, even-handed justice system.

But human nature is to want to see something done about it when crimes happen. That's why before formal justice systems existed (and still today in certain undeveloped areas), a mob would form and just take out -- as in kill -- the suspect on the spot. Without really being sure that they were guilty.

The idea of deferring punishment, recognizing and protecting the rights of the accused, and conducting a fair, orderly trial is a wonderful thing, but it's not the default. It's really more like an achievement in human evolution.

It has to do with incentives. When incentivized for the number of arrests and convictions, no one cares if it's the right people. Add in that there is almost zero penalty for prosecutorial misconduct unless it is extreme, and it's no wonder so many innocent people end up in jail.

Prosecutors play fast and loose to win the game, justice be damned.

Yeah, the system needs to be fixed. Instead of rewarding people for number of convictions, right or wrong, they should be rewarded for reducing crime by independent measurement. Or simply be rewarded for doing their job as honestly as possible, with proper accountability and all that.

But rewarding police and prosecutors for the number of convictions is like rewarding programmers for the number of lines of code. It rewards bad code and unjust convictions.

Maybe there should be a justice-equivalent of code review for police and prosecutors.

It was called the grand jury, they made reports on issues of public concern, and authorized private prosecutors to pursue cases against suspects.

It isn't clear what sort of reforms are needed, but grand juries are the only democratic institution in our republic.

In my experience from being on a jury in England I would say absolutely don't say anything to the police unless directed by your solicitor. The amount of adverse inference a jury will take from silence is limited if you later give a good explanation in court. A jury has to be sure to convict you, it's not the case that if you don't say anything they can convict you on the absence of evidence. If you do say something to the police it will be printed out and given to the jury and they will compare it to what you said in court. So although there is theoretically no "pleading the 5th" in UK, in practice the advice doesn't change.

"The amount of adverse inference a jury will take from silence is limited if you later give a good explanation in court."

If it was possible to "sticky" a comment here, this would be the stickiestable comment.

In the UK don't speak to the police without a lawyer/solicitor present. You can then "no comment" on legal advice.

"The Secret Barrister" is an incredible read on the failings of the judicial system in the UK. I'm sure most of it applies to the US as well.

One of the key takeaways was that the Police will start building a case against you from the very first moment they start interviewing you. So the advice to not talk to the police is very relevant if you believe there is a chance to be incriminated.

The book also gives an introduction to the Inquisitorial law system - used in most of the EU - where the judge plays an active role in the investigation and finding the 'truth'; in contrast to the Adversarial system of law - used in the UK and US - where each side competes with facts and the judge is a referee; and how all of this affects the judicial process.

Your silence can only be held against you if it occurs after you've had the opportunity to consult a solicitor.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/34

So the advice holds. Don't say anything unless your solicitor tells you to do so.

In Northern Ireland, guilt can be inferred from your silence - https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf

Does that count for Scotland too? Legal system is completely different here for example in England when you buy a house it is not legally binding agreement until keys are exchanged whereas in Scotland it is binding as soon as both parties sign the agreement

That’s not quite true, in England the purchase of a house is not binding until the contract is signed and exchanged with a deposit, but completing the contract (paying the balance, handing over the keys) can be done at some agreed point in the future. In Scotland the difference is that when you make the offer to buy you include any conditions that need to be met (things that should they come up in conveyancing would cause you to withdraw). If the seller accepts the offer + the conditions you can only pull out under the conditions stated in the offer rather than for any reason you like. The process is still fundamentally: offer -> conyeancing -> contract -> completion

essentially it is easier to pull out in England than in Scotland

Ah maybe not, the wikipedia page I link to is titled 'Right to silence in England and Wales' implying things are different in Scotland. I'll edit my post.