We are so accustomed to seeing defendants sit silently at criminal tri<\/i>als while their lawyers speak that we hardly question it. Or we tell our<\/i>selves <\/i>this <\/i>silence is for their own protection, part of their privilege <\/i>against self-incrimination and the rules we have created for their own <\/i>benefit. But what if we\u2019ve gotten everything wrong? What if encouraging <\/i>defendants to remain silent does not inure to their benefit at all, but to <\/i>the State\u2019s? And what if this silencing is tied to race?<\/i><\/p>\n
\u201c<\/span>Silencing as <\/i>Blackening<\/i>\u201d <\/span>tells a fuller story about silent defendants. <\/i>One, that this silence is rarely voluntary, but instead the result of a host <\/i>of rules and decisions that encourage, coerce, and even compel silence. <\/i>Two, although we have come to take defendants sitting silently as nor<\/i>mal, in fact this silence is of recent origin. Three, although we claim this <\/i>silence benefits <\/i>defendants, the real beneficiary seems to be the State. <\/i>Four, this silencing of defendants has a racial history, and today has <\/i>race effects, such that we should recognize that silencing functions as a <\/i>type of blackening.<\/i><\/p>\n Rather than silencing <\/i>defendants, and in effect blackening them, <\/i>\u201c<\/span>Silencing as Blackening<\/i>\u201d <\/span>argues we should carve out space for defend<\/i>ants <\/i>to speak freely. And carve out space for us to listen. It argues that <\/i>listening <\/i>to defendants can help us rethink our entire criminal system. <\/i>More ambitiously still, it argues that, just maybe, listening to defendants <\/i>can help reduce racial and other biases. Can help undo race. And can <\/i>help us let race go.<\/i><\/p>\n Continue reading Silencing as Blackening<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n