Many 'Non-Americans'....not sure how to take that! However I do take comfort in being on the side of 'The Rest of the World'

In my little bit of it, the good old UK, we have a Human Rights Act enjoying supremacy in law and which just about everything has to be compliant with.

Just as a point of interest and I think it is interesting what happened here a few years ago (but I am in no way suggesting that it's the way to go anywhere else) and may be food for thought re the remaining silent bit.

I presume this was the way it was in that if there was a decent reason for the suspicion then the investigators and prosecutors should be able to demonstrate a case against the individual(s) concerned without them having to say anything and still exceed the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.

For whatever reason (ambush defence?) the powers that be decided things needed to change. A suspect who remains silent may now be advised that the jury can draw such inferences from his silence as seem proper. This appears to give less scope for coming up with some other explanation at a much later date as to his presence at a scene of a crime, items found on his person etc etc, I suppose

I do not know how often this happens or how effective in practical terms it all is but it is interesting to note that it was decided that this was a reasonable step to take. It was felt that there was absolutely no good reason, I again suppose, for a suspect in interview to remain silent and not provide an explanation there and then to particular questions