Could someone explain the 5th amendent to the constitution

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Exapno_Mapcase

No. The rule in Congress is that if they allow questioning into anything, they legally open themselves to questioning on everything. If they are to use their Fifth Amendment rights, they must apply them from the beginning. They can identify themselves but answer no substantive questions, even seemingly innocuous ones.

To clarify, while most people who have asserted the right to silence before Congress have refused to answer any questions, there is much debate over whether answering non-incriminating questions constitutes a waiver.

[JRDelirious]

@bardos

Hate to say it but it makes them look slimy actually, especially their lawyers who sit behind them. Doesn’t it mean that they have some knowledge of a crime and, even if innocent bystanders, and they take the 5th to avoid… not sure what?

Still having trouble wrapping my head around this technique.

What you fail to see is that the slick move was on the legislators’ side, in imposing the Rule, that the witness has to answer nothing, or answer EVERYTHING, because they want members of the public like you to draw exactly that inference.

But in many cases, the witness can take a hit in public opinion perception rather than provide headline fodder for some congresscritter, better than they could take being dragged into a court case.

Of course, the Committee can always do an Ollie North and offer immunity, if they really want answers that badly.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I don’t believe that’s true. A jury may draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s failure to testify in the civil case, but not from a failure to testify in other proceedings.

Good point. I was picturing a defendant who also declined to testify in the civil case, but I didn’t articulate that. Certainly, if the defendant does testify in the civil case, I assume that any refusal to testify elsewhere would not come in to evidence.

[Carryon]

@gnoitall

So that the innocent doesn’t get tortured 501 times, so that they say “yes” eventually?

Do you really doubt the power of torture to extract a desired confession? Not accurate information, but the response specifically desired by the interrogator.

That makes no sense, if they were tortured in any way it wouldn’t hold up, whatever the reason, no matter if they said “yes” right off or even before the trial or on the 500th time asked.

[dofe]

@Carryon

That makes no sense, if they were tortured in any way it wouldn’t hold up, whatever the reason, no matter if they said “yes” right off or even before the trial or on the 500th time asked.

We may not have that problem today, but, like many of reasons that underlie the procedural protections described in the Bill of Rights, torture as a way of obtaining information or confessions was historically a real concern. You don’t even have to go back that far in time to encounter torture used by police against suspects – this was unfortunately a common practice in the South in the mid-20th century, most famously in the Norma Padgett case:

A grand jury indicted the three remaining rape suspects. Shepherd and Greenlee separately later told FBI investigators that the deputies beat them until they confessed. Irvin refused to confess, despite also being severely beaten. An FBI investigation concluded that Lake County Sheriff’s Department deputies James Yates and Leroy Campbell were responsible for the beatings, and agents documented the physical abuse with photographs. The Justice Department urged the U.S. Attorney in Tampa to file charges, but U.S. Attorney Herbert Phillips was reluctant, and failed to return indictments.

Once the trial began, the prosecution did not bring the alleged confessions into evidence, fearing that a higher court would overturn guilty verdicts on the grounds of coerced confessions. Shepherd and Irvin claimed they were in Eatonville, Florida, drinking that night. Greenlee claimed to be nowhere near the other defendants on that night and said that he had never met the other defendants until he was arrested and taken to the same jail in Tavares, Florida.

If anything, your attitude of incredulity that torture could possibly happen in our time an example of why these procedural rights are so important.

[DrDeth]

@dofe

We may not have that problem today, but, like many of reasons that underlie the procedural protections described in the Bill of Rights, torture as a way of obtaining information or confessions was historically a real concern. You don’t even have to go back that far in time to encounter torture used by police against suspects – this was unfortunately a common practice in the South in the mid-20th century, most famously in the Norma Padgett case:

If anything, your attitude of incredulity that torture could possibly happen in our time an example of why these procedural rights are so important.

Before most of us were born does not quite qualify as “in our time”.

[dofe]

@DrDeth

Before most of us were born does not quite qualify as “in our time”.

@dofe

If anything, your attitude of incredulity that torture could possibly happen in our time an example of why these procedural rights are so important.

Not sure why you’re critiquing my statement that Carryon’s present attitude that torture is not a concern today is an example of why we need certain procedural protections. If you read my statement again, I wasn’t suggesting that torture happens regularly today, nor did I say that the Padgett case happened in our times. Did you have anything insightful about the topic to contribute?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@DrDeth

Before most of us were born does not quite qualify as “in our time”.

Nobody said anything about concern about torture before you were born. The poster pointed out that it happened relatively recently, and used that to underscore the idea that it could easily happen now.