In 1994 Gregory O'Reilly commented on an amendment to English criminal procedure which allows judges and juries to consider as evidence of guilt both a suspect's failure to answer police questions during interrogation and a defendant's failure to testify at his or her criminal trial in certain specified circumstances. This essay is a reply to O'Reilly's article. In addition, the present article suggests that Americans should begin to question their legal system, especially the criminal justice system, and the assumptions on which it is based, particularly the doctrine of the presumption of innocence. The American doctrine of the accused person's right of silence and the almost absolute protection the doctrine offers to prevent adverse consequences from exercising this right are also derived in large part from the presumption of innocence. This essay argues that these ancillary doctrines are also morally questionable. Notes