ABSTRACT
This chapter seeks to show that—despite the near-universal obeisance paid to the PI—there is no widely shared view of exactly what the PI requires in terms of rules and procedures. Different jurisdictions and different constitutional courts construe the PI in vastly different ways. In many common law jurisdictions, the arrest of a suspect for a serious crime is likely to be accompanied by a release of his mug shot to the press and often a so-called "perp walk" where the newly accused is paraded before the cameras, frequently in handcuffs or other forms of constraint. For centuries, US courts—like those in most parts of the world—permitted jurors or judges to draw adverse inferences from defendant's silence, where they seemed appropriate. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's exercise of his right to silence is grounded on the PI.
