From the time a man is arrested until arraignment he is quizzed with a view to inducing him to admit his offence or give some evidence that may help convict him.

Logically, why should not a person charged with a crime be obliged to give what explanation he can of the affair?
Why should he have the privilege of silence?
Doesn't he owe a duty to the public the same as any other witness?
If he is innocent he has nothing to fear; if he is guilty--away with him! The French have no false ideas about such things and at the same time they have a high regard for liberty.

We merely cheat ourselves into thinking that our liberty is something different from French liberty because we have a lot of laws upon our statute books that are there only to be disregarded and would have to be repealed instantly if enforced.
Take, for instance, the celebrated provision of the penal laws that the failure of an accused to testify in his own behalf shall not be taken against him.

Such a doctrine flies in the face of human nature.

If a man sits silent when witnesses under oath accuse him of a crime it is an inevitable inference that he has nothing to say--that no explanation of his would explain.