HackerTube.dev

"You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" (James Duane)

The Cato Institute · 886.4K views · 2016-09-30 · 34:48

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

Law professor James Duane explains why you should not talk to the police even if you are innocent, drawing on case histories of wrongful convictions. It is a short version of the argument in his book on the right to remain silent.

On Hacker News

HN commenters send it to anyone who thinks innocent people have nothing to fear from answering police questions.

Recommended by 4 HN people across 4 months · HN mentions 2018–2026

Topics

Law, policing & justice
Search by tags
self-incriminationfifth amendmentpolice interrogationlawwrongful conviction

What people said

dotBen · 2021-12 · Strong recommendation

Yup, this is a very important video for everyone to watch, but especially anyone moving to America who doesn't understand the differences to policing in this country vs others. If you have watched this video, you might want to review this highly anticipated follow up several years later: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
keanzu · 2020-03 · Strong recommendation

If anyone reads the parent here and doesn't agree then watch "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
the_af · 2023-01 · Recommendation

To my other comment, let me add that this follow up video by Duane specifically addresses your scenario: the concerned parents of a missing girl unwisely spoke to the cops, without knowing they were suspects in the case (because the cops regularly suspect this, "9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who committed the crime" as one cop put it). In this case, the cops suspected the father. After they found the body of the daughter, which had drowned, they didn't tell the father (because he was a suspect but they didn't want to read him his rights) and claimed to be still looking for her in order to continue incriminating her father. His mistake: volunteering to talk to the cops without a lawyer. Watch it here, I've picked the right timestamp for you: [VIDEO] By volunteering to talk to the cops, you may also end up providing information that -- according to the cops -- "only the killer could have known". Oops! Even worse, if the interview wasn't taped (and in some cases, even if it was!) the cops can claim, either mistakenly or on purpose, that you provided self-incriminating evidence even if you didn't. Duane provides examples of how, even if your answers are taped but the cops' questions aren't , seemingly innocent answers can get you in trouble. Example: "I swear I've never touched a gun in my life" (cops: "we didn't mention the murder weapon, how did he know it was a gun? We didn't ask this. Suspicious!").

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by The Cato Institute, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources