“I don’t respect your right to take the 5th Amendment”

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's a complete idiot at times, but I'll give him a passing grade for kicking TicketMaster in the face for their business practices.

Why does this couple need a Congressional hearing?! Unless they're somehow linked to terrorism, in which case Congresscritters are not the people who should be questioning them, either toss 'em in jail or let 'em go, and slap the Secret Service on the wrist either way.
 
C

Chibibar

He's a complete idiot at times, but I'll give him a passing grade for kicking TicketMaster in the face for their business practices.

Why does this couple need a Congressional hearing?! Unless they're somehow linked to terrorism, in which case Congresscritters are not the people who should be questioning them, either toss 'em in jail or let 'em go, and slap the Secret Service on the wrist either way.
I was wondering about that. If they are gate crashers (which seems to be) wouldn't the secret service handle this?
 
No point to the hearings. I agree that they are a public charade. Charge them with trespassing already and get on with increasing your security measures. Idiots.
 
S

Soliloquy

No point to the hearings. I agree that they are a public charade. Charge them with trespassing already and get on with increasing your security measures. Idiots.
But without public charades, there'd be no politics!
 
I'll be honest - I don't understand how the 5th Amendment works. It seems it's used as a shield for people to not answer questions under oath that may present them as doing something illegal.

But isn't that why they're in the court to begin with?
 
I'll be honest - I don't understand how the 5th Amendment works. It seems it's used as a shield for people to not answer questions under oath that may present them as doing something illegal.

But isn't that why they're in the court to begin with?
There are many reasons why somebody would be in court and not be accused of a crime.

For example let's say that a druge dealer sees a break in while he's slinging crack on the corner. Because it was his grandmother's house that got broken into he decides to come forward and testify. On the stand the Defense attorney hoping to discredit him asks him what exactly he was doing on that street corner. Now he can either lie under oath risking getting arrested for perjury or refusing to answer the question getting himself charged with contempt of court or answering the question honestly and getting arrested on his way out of court.

Or he can just say "I plead the 5th" and nobody can arrest him for jack shit.
 
I'll be honest - I don't understand how the 5th Amendment works. It seems it's used as a shield for people to not answer questions under oath that may present them as doing something illegal.

But isn't that why they're in the court to begin with?
There are many reasons why somebody would be in court and not be accused of a crime.

For example let's say that a druge dealer sees a break in while he's slinging crack on the corner. Because it was his grandmother's house that got broken into he decides to come forward and testify. On the stand the Defense attorney hoping to discredit him asks him what exactly he was doing on that street corner. Now he can either lie under oath risking getting arrested for perjury or refusing to answer the question getting himself charged with contempt of court or answering the question honestly and getting arrested on his way out of court.

Or he can just say "I plead the 5th" and nobody can arrest him for jack shit.[/QUOTE]

Ok, well, that makes sense. But he's acting as a witness to a crime. It seems more and more that actual criminals who are on trial use it as protection.

No wait, it was Alberto Gonzalez "I cannot remember"....
 
True, but without it we'd have fewer criminals willing to testify against their compatriots for fear of being prosecuted in the process. Sometimes you gotta let the small fish free to catch the big fish, even if the big fish will sometimes wiggle out of the net.
 
There's also the whole deal about it being the job of the prosecution to make the case, and not rely on the defendant to do all the work for them. If charges are brought against a defendant, it is the plaintiff's (or the plaintiff's counsel's) job to build and present the case, and it is not the defendant's (or defendant's counsel's) job to help them. Quite the opposite, actually.

--Patrick
 
informative article
http://www.slate.com/id/2061972/

The right was created in reaction to the excesses of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission—British courts of equity that operated from 1487-1641. These courts utilized the inquisitorial method of truth-seeking as opposed to the prosecutorial, meaning that prosecutors did not bear the burden of proving a case, but that sufficient "proof" came from browbeating confessions out of the accused.
 
I was under the impression that you could either plead the fifth, or testify. Not testify as to some evidence, then plead to specific questions.
 
C

Chazwozel

I'll be honest - I don't understand how the 5th Amendment works. It seems it's used as a shield for people to not answer questions under oath that may present them as doing something illegal.

But isn't that why they're in the court to begin with?
There are many reasons why somebody would be in court and not be accused of a crime.

For example let's say that a druge dealer sees a break in while he's slinging crack on the corner. Because it was his grandmother's house that got broken into he decides to come forward and testify. On the stand the Defense attorney hoping to discredit him asks him what exactly he was doing on that street corner. Now he can either lie under oath risking getting arrested for perjury or refusing to answer the question getting himself charged with contempt of court or answering the question honestly and getting arrested on his way out of court.

Or he can just say "I plead the 5th" and nobody can arrest him for jack shit.[/QUOTE]

Ok, well, that makes sense. But he's acting as a witness to a crime. It seems more and more that actual criminals who are on trial use it as protection.

No wait, it was Alberto Gonzalez "I cannot remember"....[/QUOTE]

In this case, he was asking them details on how they were able to sneak in? In which case they would incriminate themselves further than the present charges? I'm not too sure. All I know is it's stupid of him to get all bent out of shape because they're doing what their lawyers told them to do.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

True, but without it we'd have fewer criminals willing to testify against their compatriots for fear of being prosecuted in the process. Sometimes you gotta let the small fish free to catch the big fish, even if the big fish will sometimes wiggle out of the net.
It has nothing to do with acquiring testimonies. It has everything to do with the protecting the rights of the person doing the testifying.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

It seems more and more that actual criminals who are on trial use it as protection.
The thing is that no one's a real criminal until they've been convicted. One of the reasons this right exists (and Canadians have it, too) is that even innocent people can give testimony that incriminates themselves. That is, they say something that can make the judge or jurors think they're guilty.

I think it was someone on here that posted the link, but anyway I remember being linked to a video of a Defense Lawyer given a lecture to law students. The freaking thing was like an hour long, but I watched it anyway. He described how talking to the cops - even when you're innocent - can be dangerous, even if everyone is on the up and up.

An example he provided went something like this: The cops are investigating a murder, and are questioning you about it; you say you were at your mother's at the time and she lives an hour away. However, the cops find a witness - a fair, impartial woman who has no reason to lie - tells the cops she saw you at a store only a couple miles away from the crime around that time. She's wrong, she mistook you for someone else, but that's what she's told the cops. Now, the cops - and the jury eventually - are gonna think you were lying about your whereabouts and suddenly they're not believing anything you've said and you're chances off getting convicted go up. Whereas if you'd said nothing to the cops, they'd still have you placed near the crime, but they wouldn't have any "evidence" that you'd been lying and wouldn't have enough to get to court.

The story went something like that, anyway. The message was "Always tell your clients to tell the cops nothing. Even if your client is innocent."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top