Is there any country where it's advantageous to speak more than required to the police? (I'm sure there are some countries where you're required to speak more than in the USA where you're legally allowed not to speak at all without a lawyer)

Generally your refusing to answer can be used against you, ensuring that you are properly represented of course isn't

In the UK, adverse inference may be drawn from silence in certain circumstances. In fact, they will usually say:

> You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

I've heard that in Japan conviction rates at trial are something like 98%. So presumably you don't lose anything by trying to convince the cops of your innocence.

Japan also allows police to detain suspects for long periods without filing charges or providing access to an attorney. [1] So in practice you may have no choice but to talk to the police.

[1] https://apjjf.org/2020/13/IbusukiRepeta.html

Just one example is it's the norm to ask police for directions in Japan.

You need to carry a passport if you're a tourist in Japan. Although I did forget once and nobody cared, it isn't guaranteed.

Police in Japan also go door-to-door introducing themselves to residents, gathering basic info (what is your job, how many people living here, etc), sharing details about recent crime in the neighborhood, etc. [1] While it is supposedly voluntary, I think just about everyone complies.

I personally have always played along as the police are always very friendly when making rounds, and wish to maintain that friendly relationship. I also consider myself a beneficiary of the low crime rates here, and consider participation to be a civic responsibility.

http://www.accessj.com/2013/02/police-home-visits.html

> Is there any country where it's advantageous to speak more than required to the police

I think it's more a "why would it be problematic?" and not so much if it's advantageous. Unless you're guilty, but then it's normally advantageous in the sense that your punishment often reduced when you admit guilt.

There are countries where the policy can beat up with impunity or let you off for minor infractions. In the past in the Ukraine they also took bribes at every opportunity.

Everywhere. In every non 3rd world country you have a right to not incriminate yourself.

“I do not recall” and “I refuse to answer” translates well into a lot of languages.

The first time when you should talk about your case, if ever, is in court, during the trial.

This isn't accurate, adverse inference can be drawn from silence in many first world western nations.

“adverse inference” is still nothing when it comes to making a case and is still infinitely better than perhaps missing an important detail and then having discrepancies between your own testimonies.

Do you know anything about other countries? I’d love to hear.

UK version of Miranda warning is

>You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

More info: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/pol...

This video is one of my bugbears. It gets posted every now and then on Reddit and other places, upvoted a lot, and nobody in the comments points out how dangerous it is to rely on some of this advice outside of the US. You can really land yourself in trouble if you aren't aware of the differences between American legal system and your home country's, even when they're both based on common law. Just another side effect of American cultural imperialism.

*Especially in the US