Active Now

my2cents
ENG / LLVF - formerly of AB
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » The 5th amendment protects you against incriminating yourself. How do you incriminate yourself if you are INNOCENT and did nothing wrong?
RosieG

The 5th amendment protects you against incriminating yourself. How do you incriminate yourself if you are INNOCENT and did nothing wrong?

That is why I have a problem with it. If you take the FIFTH you are guilty of something. If you were innocent there would be no need to assert that Constitutional Right against self-incrimiation. So you might as well admit your guilt since by taking the 5th you already have. Only if you admit it you show that you are responsible for what you do/say. You man up or woman up immediately. If you refuse to testify you are a weeny whiny guilty- of- something someone and should be ASHAMED of yourself! Harsh? Mebbe. But I am A FAN OF TELLING THE TRUTH. For those who are incapable of doing so then at least show some self-respect and admit what you did when you're caught. Anything less reduces whatever integrity/honor you had once upon a time to nothing. Just my opinion. I know lots and loads of y'all are big fans of 5th amendment protections. Different strokes. Right?


Posted - March 31, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6098
    5th amendment recognizes that guilt or innocence are matters of law rather than prejudice.  Because many people if you incriminate yourself that is not enough for them.  They are judgmental and resentful and vengeful and so they will want to wipe the floor with you.  Thus such a protection from the worst instincts of some people. 
      March 31, 2019 9:21 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Actually, guilt and innocent are matters of morality---guilty and not guilty are legal terms.
      March 31, 2019 10:29 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    :):):)
      April 1, 2019 3:35 AM MDT
    0

  • 2217
    There are interrogation techniques effective in eliciting confessions whether or not the person actually did it. 
      March 31, 2019 9:31 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Wouldn't they be ILLEGAL Malizz? Are you talking about despot dictator regimes or "civilized country" government too? What you are saying is that people are FORCED by different means to admit guilt when they are innocent. That cannot be legal anywhere. So you think Americans need the 5th amendment to protect again evil enforcers who will make them lie? I dunno. I see it in movies and I don't buy it.  Weight that against the hordes of people who use it as a ruse. They don't have to tell the truth. The Constitution sez so. Why would we give protection to liars? At what cost to the rest of us? Thank you for your reply and Happy April Fool's Day Monday! :)
      April 1, 2019 3:39 AM MDT
    0

  • 2217
    I believe they did make some of them illegal, eventually. But it's still "Who will police the policemen?"

     This post was edited by Malizz at April 2, 2019 6:54 AM MDT
      April 2, 2019 6:50 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    That is a very great question Malizz and sadly I don't have a clue! Whom could we trust to do that? Who would then check them out? I mean how many levels of checking out/auditing would it take to INSURE that justice be done? SIGH.  I'm gonna ask.Thank you for your reply! If you figger it out please share it with us okey dokey?
      April 2, 2019 6:56 AM MDT
    0

  • 32669
    Almost every country in the world has it. Commonly referred to as the Right to Silence. 
      March 31, 2019 9:37 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    I like that phrase: "the Right to Silence."---I am frequently pleased when others avail themselves of that right. 
      March 31, 2019 10:31 AM MDT
    2

  • 2217
    The UK caution tries to bamboozle you out of it. 
      March 31, 2019 10:59 AM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    My wife watches a lot of British mysteries on Amazon Fire---I am familiar with the term, but looked it up to be sure of its consequences:

    Cautions
    Cautions are given to anyone aged 10 or over for minor crimes - for example writing graffiti on a bus shelter.

    You have to admit an offence and agree to be cautioned. You can be arrested and charged if you don’t agree.

    A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it could be used as evidence of bad character if you go to court for another crime.
      March 31, 2019 11:03 AM MDT
    0

  • 2217

    You've got the other meaning of caution. However you can see that if someone does not wish to be arrested and charged, he may admit an offence whether or not he actually did it. 

    I was referring to the police spiel when they tell you of your right to silence, also called a caution.  The simple advice is followed by a convoluted piece of legalese. A lawyer may correct me, but I think it means be silent if you like, but if something comes up in court that you haven't mentioned we could tell the court that you'd kept quiet about it and that could affect your defence. A possibly dramatised version of it regularly occurs in police programmes that your wife has likely seen.   

    This post was edited by Malizz at March 31, 2019 11:33 AM MDT
      March 31, 2019 11:28 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    If I were arrested in the UK, I personally would see less of a problem with UK version of our US Miranda ("caution" in the UK) rights than I would agreeing that I was guilty of an offence for which I had agreed to being cautioned for and then having that caution used as defined evidence of my demonstrated "bad character."

    That change was made in that the judge can make a decision about the validity of something you didn't mention earlier that you later attempt to rely on:

    In Britain, as in the United States, people arrested for a criminal offense have received a ritual police warning: They have the right to refuse to answer all questions put to them by investigators. It is only what they say that can be used against them.

    But in the coming months, police officers in Britain will begin delivering another and markedly different caution to those they apprehend. While suspects will still be told that they do not have to talk to officers, they will be warned as well that their silence might count against them, if their case goes to trial.

    The measure detailing this radically different interpretation of a suspect's so-called right to silence was narrowly passed by Parliament last month amid a fierce debate between the Government and a broad alliance of civil liberties groups, legal scholars, judges and professional legal societies.

    Italics are from a NYT article from 1996---I haven't kept up with the situation:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/11/us/silence-may-speak-against-the-accused-in-britain.html

      April 2, 2019 3:23 PM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    Understatement. Moi aussie mon ami! Moi aussi! :)
      April 1, 2019 3:39 AM MDT
    0