Does it? You could just as easily take the 5th. However it could keep people from lying on the stand. That includes false alibis, corrupt police officers, people with grudges, etc.
And, CBS dramas aside, when Bob stabs Jane and Jane dies of a stabbing wound, it’s almost always due to Bob’s actions.
Not really, no. The differences in opinion in this thread stem from a difference in, mostly, one fundamental opinion.
I believe everybody does things that are morally, ethically or legally reprehensible to somebody, somewhere. Everybody from your grandmother to Charles Manson on the same legal continuum of moral and legal crime. It isn’t us and them, it’s just us.
I believe it is everybodies duty to enact laws that are fair. Do you think that if you have commited and were charged with a capital crime, giving you truth serum to compell you to give up the goods on yourself would be fair? I certainly wouldn’t think so. What if your sister witnessed the crime but loves you so much as to not testify. Would it be fair to compell her to take the serum and testify against her will , something that’ll probably haunt her for the rest of her life? Could you possibly level the playing field by compelling the prosecutor to take the serum to disclose their legal strategy to your attorney? Possibly, but thats debatable.
My thinking is that the law is blind, but human relationships are not. I assert that it is my fundamental right to not say things I do not wish to disclose. Whilst not all speech is protected, I consider any lack of speech automatically protected. Compelling a truthful testimony from me about myself or others, no matter how fair, still violates my freedom of speech. The right not to speak should be absolute.
If you disagree with this, that’s simply that. You disagree with that. I do not believe there is anything that would change your mind or mine, so the debate is moot. It’s such a fundamental concept that you’re either one way or another on it. Something throughout your life shaped your feelings and opinions about this, and this is how you feel right now. I can’t tell you WHY I think the right not to speak should be absolute, probably why you think you have a right to life, or a right to practice your religion.
I think people, especially those who are angered by my thoughts and statements, will agree that in general, the right and the ability to keep your mouth shut is essential to keeping out society going. Some might argue that just like the right not to keep your mouth shut, this right is not absolute. However, this is so fundamental that it is practically a matter of taste or faith, rather than fact.
The PIT was about the person proposing to repeal the 5th amendment because the truth serum was now available making the amendment absolute.
You’re an idiot.
Let’s take your examples:
[ul]
[li]Throwing batteries in the trash - what’s the crime, precisely?[/li][li]Accidentally littering - if it’s an accident, it’s not a crime – no mens rea[/li][li]Speeding - granted it’s a crime. But not one that deals out a jail sentence[/li][/ul]
So tell me again how people will be locked up for life.
I’m not seeing “anger” so much as “pointing and laughing.”
You too, are an idiot.
Throwing batteries in the trash violates federal law about proper disposal of dangerous chemicals.
A lot of US jurisdictions, (right off the top of my head, I believe, Ohio is one) have strict liability littering laws. So no intent required.
Speeding CAN result in jail time, but usually doesn’t, however, clearly if you were convicted of every single speeding infraction you commited and did not change your ways you will lose your license. Driving without a license can easily result in jail time.
The problem is you’re an idiot, as I suggested earlier.
Compelled speech is a part of our current legal system. If your sister witnessed your crime, she can be subpoenaed. The judge will order her to testify as to what she saw. She has no legal reason to refuse, and if she does, she can be jailed for contempt of court.
Similarly, if you are granted use immunity[sup]*[/sup - the guarantee that your testimony will not be used against you - you can be compelled to testify about your own crimes. And if you refuse, the judge can jail you for contempt.
Now, you seem to have shifted your argument a bit; you’re saying how things should be. That’s your opinion, and welcome to it. But you seem to have a complete lack of understanding that right now, without any magic serum, you may be compelled to testify, and jailed if you refuse.
I’m glad to be of service. Oh, The honor. Miller, instead of doing anything else in his (her?) very important life, decided to devote a little time to laugh at MY opinions. I mean, saying that the 5th amendment should not be repealed if we have a perfect truth serum and that nobody should be compelled to testify (even if truth is guaranteed) is obviously so utterly ridiculous as to be unfathomable how a reasonable person could believe that. I mean obviously if a person is guilty they have no rights, because they’ve been bad and they should be punished!
Cite?
Cite?
Granted. But that’s a far cry from your original proposition. We may reasonably assume that after your first conviction or two, you WILL drive below the speed limit. The wide-spread disregard of speed limits is fueled in large part by the lack of perfect enforcement. I would not expect perfect enforcement to cause evry single driver to end up in prison for life – which was your claim.
Part of this depends on how this mythical truth serum works. Does it force you to tell the truth (“Yes, I dipped little Ingrid’s ponytail into the ink in second grade.”)? Or does it simply mean one can’t lie (Matlock, “Did you kill Colonel Green in the library with the rope?” crickets chirping).
My own moral compass hopes that, when I actually get around to committing a capital crime, that my family does not cover up for me. Hell, let them sell me out and then all get rich writing books about how they knew it would always come to pass.
Your arguments haven’t just taken a slide down a slippery slope, they’ve jackknifed off of Mount Everest. In your dystopia, where we have a truth serum that compels speech, and it seems you want everyone taking it three times a day with meals in order to record their crimes. Instead, I’ve inserted the fantasy serum into a current system, where you already need enough information to go to trial (that’s what a grand jury decides) before you even bring out the idea of needles. You set up a system of checks and balances (like we already did) to prevent fishing expeditions. (Matlock again, "Did you kill Colonel Green in the library with the rope? No? How about in the conservatory with the candlestick? No? How about…?) Will there be abuses…DUH! Find me any justice system that someone doesn’t try to abuse somewhere somehow. Doesn’t prevent people from trying to make it fair.
One last note - when I commit that capital crime (I’m still deciding which one I want to commit, give me time), my brother might be compelled to testify by the prosecution. He will be asked questions under oath, and can possibly be held in contempt of court if he fails to answer the questions. He will definitely be perjuring himself if he answers the questions untruthfully. One cannot be forced to incriminate oneself. That does not mean that others in the know don’t have to testify what they know.
Bricker, next time wait until I finish my post to back me up. 
Except that in the current system you get a choice, you either comply and testify willingly, or you lose your freedom.
With the compelled truth serum you get a choice, you either comply and testify willingly, or you will testify unwillingly. I suppose if you can’t actually FORCE a person to take the serum the case would be different and they could opt for short jail time as opposed to taking the serum.
Need I remind everybody that BwanaBob proposed that the right not to incriminate oneself stems from the fact that coerced testimony cannot be trusted, and that if we could assure the veracity of the testimony using the serum, the right not to incriminate oneself suddenly disappears. This is what I am against, as well as compulsive use of the serum. I am not against using such serum voluntarily in a legal system to prove what you are saying is true is wrong in any way.
And are you for or against providing the cites I requested earlier?
I don’t know, it didn’t feel like you genuinely wanted the cites, but were just attacking anything you could. Maybe you should work for the government, they seem to like people like you there.
I couldn’t find any cites that applied to consumers as regards to batteries. It is clearly illegal for manufacturers and retailers to dump batteries, but that’s an obvious one.
As for strict liability littering, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 37 Section 3767.14 Nuisances:
Note how oil dumping is strict liability. You know, even if your car drips a little. There’s other cites there, but since it’s not essential to the argument, what’s the point?
Very well, if BwanaBob replies, we can redirect along that route. This does not absolve you of defending the idiocy of some of your statements.
To help refine both of our arguments, let’s define this serum. Does it:
(a) Compel one to truthfully answer any questions asked, or
(b) Forbid one from falsely answering any questions without compelling an answer?
Then we would need to define how current rules would change, including on how the 5th amendment might need to be revisited. (Or maybe I should just go read the originating thread in case this is discussed there).
See you tomorrow. Maybe by then you’ll realize your knee-jerk OP was off-base. Or I’ll return to more of the comedy gems I’ve read here thus far. Either way, it’s all good.
Of course I wanted the cites. They were part of refuting your ridiculous idea that there are scads of laws about such that, if all were enforced, each one of us would be in prison for life.
Sure. So a person discarding household batteries in the trash does NOT face criminal liability. Strike that one.
Sorry. Oil drips from a car are de minimis. It’s not even clear that an “oil well, oil tank, oil vat, or place of deposit of crude or refined oil” refers to a car, since criminal statutes must be construed strictly against the state, and the list of items taken together refers to a more commercial set of oil storage applications than a mobile passenger car. Also observe the venue requirement: the statute clearly contemplates oil well, oil tank, oil vat, or place of deposit of crude or refined oil to be in fixed locations.
So strike that one, too.
Your assertion was garbage.
Presumably, if there were a magic truth serum, there would be rules about where it could be used, so that a wife couldn’t use it casually to check if her husband was cheating, but it could be used by the state to determine if a person were guilty of capital murder.
There was a short story by Isaac Asimov where there was a magic truth serum type thing, and the rule in that universe was that it could be used only once on each person.
Bricker, since you’re here and commenting on the matter, perhaps you can tell us your opinion of BwanaBob’s explanation of the 5th Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. Apparently, the protection against self-incrimination exists to prevent torture.
If I were going to pit BwanaBob for the thread, it would have been for this issue, and his pit-bull like lock on a tortured understanding of the 5th Amendment.
Not to mention, who would actually notice this so that they could testify against themselves? If just the cop notices and takes the serum himself to say that he saw it, well, that’s not exactly involuntary, is it?
Sorry for the late checkin - commuting, dinner, child to bed, etc.
If you’re saying I misunderstood the intent of the amendment I can accept that.
I’m pretty sure I said it just my understanding; I’m not a lawyer nor a student of history (should be obvious).
Others have proposed variations on my theme and I found them food for thought.
Others here are also more eloquent than I and have said things I should have, and they did it better than I would have.
I will retreat with my drug and say that the legal system should be re-evaluated if and when my drug is ever invented. I still say an innocent person would be a fool to not take it.
Oh one last thing. I use the terms innocent and guilty not in the strict legal sense but in terms of did the person actually do the crime; nothing to do with “only guilty after they’ve been found so in a court of law”. Is there any other terminology to describe the status of a person who truly committed a crime but remains unknown? I use the word “guilty” for that.