In his original article, the author, along with others, argued that limiting the right to silence would have significant effects on the accusatorial system of justice, because the right exists to stall the engine that drives the inquisitorial system: the power to encourage, require, or force individuals to answer to government questioning. By adopting the use of adverse inferences from the refusal to speak, England has curtailed the right to silence and replaced it with a "duty to talk." In addition to defending England's new law, Ingraham offered his own proposal for, among other things, imposing a duty to talk and reducing the standard and burden of proof. In his reply to Ingraham, the author argues that if, as Ingraham believes, there are no practical effects from curtailing the right to silence, no increase in confessions or convictions, and no reduction in crime, it seems unreasonable for society to risk the costs of such a change, such as increasing the conviction of the innocent and abuse by officials, as well as the accretion of government power at the expense of individuals' privacy and autonomy. 151 footnotes