It's always a good idea to ask for a lawyer (and to demand that the embassy of your home country gets informed).
However, the consequences of not talking can vary wildly. In some countries, police might torture you. Some countries might hold silence against you or even punish you for withholding exculpatory information.
Also remember outside the US, there's limited to no protection against repeated prosecution. Only 50-ish countries have protections against "double jeopardy" written into their constitutions and there's lots of exclusions.
Italy is infamous for trying people over and over for the same offense until they get a conviction.
I think these are just slightly different approaches to the same goals of carceral malfeasance. You don't need to try someone more than once if you can torture a confession out of them. You don't need to torture a confession out of someone if you can try them as many times as you want.
Cops and prosecutors will use the tools available to them, the specifics of the tools varying a lot by local history and governance traditions.
Italy does have protection from repeated prosecution as a fundamental right (not least due to the directly binding charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
And as the US population currently finds out, what's written in a constitution is not worth much when there is inadequate rule of law (and the US constitution offers comparatively few protections as is).
As a general rule, research that before you go anywhere. In Canada, for example, suspects have the right not to make any statements. In China, suspects have the right not to answer “irrelevant questions.”
It’s also very important to remember that some countries have complicated relationships with other countries/races/religions. Your mileage may vary depending on where you’re from and the colour of your skin. As an example, I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent. Same in the United States if I was Black.
And finally, it may be even more important to remember that you’re unlikely to receive consular assistance at the time of arrest. Rather, there could be a delay while people with guns threaten to shoot you with them. It’s a very good idea to do all your research ahead of time and have timed check ins with people you care about whenever you’re going to a different country. It’s also a good idea to memorize at least three key phone numbers within your country’s foreign affairs, particularly ones that will work toll free or accept charges. Even the concept of ‘a phone call’ varies between countries. As an example, I don’t know if Canadian police are required to let someone call out of country. I’m sure that many would but I don’t know about any specific policy.
You should stop taking your information from movies and media headlines. You are going to get people in trouble!
> I wouldn’t particularly want to have to exercise my right not to make statements in Canada if I were of indigenous descent.
Why is that? Seems like you're going to get a lot of natives in trouble with that kind of advice. Never heard lawyers saying that in criminal Common Law countries for any minority.
The last time there were any statistics collected, an indigenous person in my province had a higher chance of completing a stint in a federal penitentiary than of completing an undergraduate degree. That’s what I’m talking about. You could use Google for three minutes instead of being so rude. You should try it.
You're making an emotional argument by bringing other unrelated social issues. How possibly incriminating yourself by talking to police, especially as a vulnerable minority, is going to help?
I can't imagine a place where it wouldn't hold true. You may or may not get the lawyer you request but a police interview is never gonna be about anything other than getting you to say something that will get you convicted of one or many crimes.
Example: in France if you get caught with cannabis and get to the stage where you get into a police interview, it's the police that recommends to the public prosecutor what to do next. Usually the public prosecutor follows the recommendations of the police.
So you can end up having no troubles, in exchange of giving them useful information (e.g. to track down the dealer) even if it's incriminating you. It's informal, but it exists. It's a gamble (though there is an official status as well: "repenti")
That's supposed to be how it works in America as well, but realistically what happens is they overcharge and then leverage your fear about the unreliability of the jury process to get you to confess regardless of guilt. I don't know how to determine whether that's similar with French police but I think you're giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt in assuming that this only works in the most innocent way possible.
