Wrong

Post #185,543

11/30/04 9:31:32 AM

11/30/04 1:35:29 PM

Wrong

'inherent' doesn't enter into it
the Constitution says no one has to testify against themselves
that is a right
only changing the Bill of Rights changes that
not some device

A

Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]

Edited by andread Nov. 30, 2004, 01:35:29 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #185,546

by JayMehaffey

11/30/04 10:22:57 AM

Re: Wrong

the Constitution says no one has to testify against themselves
that is a right

But why does it say that? The right not to testify against yourself is not like the right of free speach or religion. Rather, it is like the right not to have soldiers stationed in your house. It exists to prevent an abusive practice that was common in that era.

only changing the Bill of Rights cahnges that
not some device

Obviously, removing the 5th admendment would require changing the Constitution. However, there does come a time when doing so is a good idea. And a sufficently accurate lie detector would be such a reason.

Jay

Post #185,555

by imric

11/30/04 12:04:29 PM

Fishing expeditions.

Perhaps. If the use of such a device were entirely voluntary as a right. Evidence not pertinent to whatever legal action 'required' the use of such a device would have to be inadmissable and ineligible for followup - or law-enforcement fishing-trips would become commonplace. It would be worse than house-to house searches. Of course, as long as you have not done anything wrong, or embarrasing, as long no questions are asked like 'have you stopped beating your wife' where almost any answer is incriminating, it's OK to strip that right away from individuals, huh. In a world where no abuses occur, no rights are needed.

Good thing we already have a right against self-incrimination.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #185,558

by drewk

11/30/04 12:22:21 PM

What else it would need

If we're going to say that the machine is good enough to convict, then it has to be good enough to exonerate.

What if you've got 40 people who saw someone beat a child to death. Then he takes the machine and passes. Do you let him go? If not, then I don't think you can use it to convict.

If you don't like that standard, than I don't want to take it. If you do like that standard, I'm going to start practicing lying now. I'll get real good at it, too. I've always wanted an excuse to study self-hypnosis.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #185,564

by JayMehaffey

11/30/04 12:37:44 PM

Depends

It would depend on how accurate the machine actually is.

And being more accruate then eye witnesses isn't actually that high of a standard. A good percent of the cases overturned on DNA evidence arose because an eyewitness picked somebody out of a line up, and then police and DA's selectivly picked evidence to make the case.

Jay

Post #185,562

by JayMehaffey

11/30/04 12:33:48 PM

Re: Fishing expeditions.

Evidence not pertinent to whatever legal action 'required' the use of such a device would have to be inadmissable and ineligible for followup - or law-enforcement fishing-trips would become commonplace.

I mentioned that above, rules against fishing trips would have to be strengthened. Lawyers might have to explain to the judge how a question is related to the case at hand before posing it to the witness or suspect.

But that is actually unrelated to the 5th admendment. Fishing questions are already illegal, but it isn't rigidly enforced. And if such a strong lie detector did exist, rules against fishing would have to apply to everybody taking the stand, not just the suspect.

There would be an even bigger problem is such device where cheap enough that the police could use them. An investigation is often a fishing trip by nature, it is unavoidable. Laws that keep police investigations secret would have to be stronger, and police would have to narrow their investigations more sharply. Of course, with such a lie detector, many investigations would end after a few direct questions.

Jay

Post #185,565

by imric

11/30/04 12:39:02 PM

Unrelated?

Fishing trips ARE self-incrimination in this context.

I don't see how it would work - or how it would make the 5th irrelevant. Indeed, I see such a device making the 5th FAR more necessary.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Welcome to IWETHEY!