6 ms·

Yes, this is how it works in the UK. Basically you have to shop yourself, or if you were not the driver then the person who was driving, to the authorities. If

Yes, this is how it works in the UK. Basically you have to shop yourself, or if you were not the driver then the person who was driving, to the authorities. If you don't, then you have committed an offence. Presumably this approach does not work in the US due to the 5th amendment. And from the article it looks like other approaches that are being tried in the US are also unconstitutional.

tehwalrus 10y ago
TBH, I prefer not to give them an incentive to the photos of people's faces at the same time as the license plates. Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable, I never quite understood the basis for the 5th amendment. Was it because of some British colonial atrocity?
- ckinnan 10y ago
  The government, in bringing a charge, has the duty to make the case....the right to not self-incriminate flows from the presumption of innocence and protection against being coerced into a false confession or into perjury.
  - davidwihl 10y ago
    Precisely. The key short phrase is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" It is only one short clause amongst several others in the amendment.
- jakewins 10y ago
  It was indeed because of the British - the fifth amendment was meant to keep US courts from using the inquisitorial method, rather than the prosecutorial, triggered by the abuses at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_U.S._Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_...
  - tehwalrus 10y ago
    Does the USA justice system use inquisitorial prosecution? From what I've heard about that kind of court in Germany, the USA is very far from that kind of non-adversarial proceeding.
    - jakewins 10y ago
      The 5th amendment specifically allows it for military trials, but for civilian trials, no, it's made impossible outside of cases where the defendant agrees to it by the 5th amendment. Presumably, this is a big part of why Bush was so keen to relabel what had previously been considered civilian terrorists as military combatants, since the fifth amendment then apparently stops applying.
      - tehwalrus 10y ago
        But the police practice of collecting evidence (e.g. tricking people into giving confessions) seems completely at odds with their neutral investigator role inquisitorial justice.
        jakewins 10y ago
        The judicial branch is meant to be neutral judges - but police and prosecutors are not part of the judicial branch. In the case of prosecutors, their job is explicitly to not be neutral. However, the 5th amendment applies there as well - they can't force you to self-incriminate, you are free to remain silent in police interrogation. However, there's nothing in the 5th amendment saying the police or courts can't ask clever questions - if you incriminate yourself because a police asked a sneaky question in interrogation, that's on you.
        tehwalrus 10y ago
        But the judge isn't free to make their own investigations, and the police are part of the prosecuting apparatus. So they evidence presented is biased, and the system is adversarial not inquisitorial. Sneaky questions versus outright lying? From what I've read, that's common practice for US police officers in suspect interviews.
- jaggederest 10y ago
  Well, the fifth element as a whole has a number of provisions. The popular clause against self-incrimination is but one of them. It's mostly to prevent the incentive to apply pressure to the citizenry via torture or harassment. (Parenthetically, we just harass witnesses instead now) "The history of this clause is interesting. In England, it was permissible at one point to force a confession, and this at times included torture. Our founders realized this was wrong, and so they added this clause." http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-amendment/ http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-a...
- cobbzilla 10y ago
  here is great video explaining the importance of 5th amendment rights: https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ there's also a longer 2-part video of the entire talk including a complementary perspective from the police POV. look in the related videos/sidebar.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable How do you determine whether they're answering questions truthfully or not?
jakewins 10y ago
I wonder how that works in the UK - the 5th amendment is just another version of the same law in England, triggered by the abuses at the same English court, Star Chamber. According to Lord Mustill: "A general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies." Which seems eminently applicable. Has the camera law been challenged in this way in British courts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
- Lukasa 10y ago
  That's not how the Westminster system works. Parliament has the right to legislate more or less as it pleases, and is not bound by any superior authority, including the courts. The courts in the U.K. cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. In this case, there is an Act of Parliament (Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1991) that makes it an offence to withhold this information. That is the end of the story: Parliament has said it, therefore it is so. (Note that in the U.K. there is currently a way out: the ECHR. I don't think they cover the right to not self-incriminate, but if they do that would be a possible challenge.) Remember: in the U.K., Parliament governs by wielding the power of the monarch. That power is formally unbounded and absolute.
  - Y_Y 10y ago
    This may not be quite the case, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Co... .
    - Lukasa 10y ago
      I Am Not A Legal Scholar, but: It is not clear to me that any of the constitutional documents in the UK enshrine a right to silence. The Right to Silence in the U.K. is generally built up on common law, not statue. Every essay I have ever found on this topic refers to the right to silence in the UK as predicated on common law, not on statute, let alone on a critical constitutional document that would require explicit repeal. So yes, Parliament cannot implicitly repeal some documents. But I don't think that the Right to Silence is in any of those. Of course, citations to the contrary would be welcome! EDIT: And in fact the law has been challenged, all the way to the ECHR. The challenge failed: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu
revelation 10y ago
This is not a 5th amendment issue as much as not submitting your taxes is. You can do that and not be prosecuted under the original traffic offence but failing to keep track of who's driving is simply another offence.

tehwalrus 10y ago

TBH, I prefer not to give them an incentive to the photos of people's faces at the same time as the license plates. Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable, I never quite understood the basis for the 5th amendment. Was it because of some British colonial atrocity?

ckinnan 10y ago
The government, in bringing a charge, has the duty to make the case....the right to not self-incriminate flows from the presumption of innocence and protection against being coerced into a false confession or into perjury.
- davidwihl 10y ago
  Precisely. The key short phrase is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" It is only one short clause amongst several others in the amendment.
jakewins 10y ago
It was indeed because of the British - the fifth amendment was meant to keep US courts from using the inquisitorial method, rather than the prosecutorial, triggered by the abuses at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_U.S._Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber#Influence_on_the_...
- tehwalrus 10y ago
  Does the USA justice system use inquisitorial prosecution? From what I've heard about that kind of court in Germany, the USA is very far from that kind of non-adversarial proceeding.
  - jakewins 10y ago
    The 5th amendment specifically allows it for military trials, but for civilian trials, no, it's made impossible outside of cases where the defendant agrees to it by the 5th amendment. Presumably, this is a big part of why Bush was so keen to relabel what had previously been considered civilian terrorists as military combatants, since the fifth amendment then apparently stops applying.
    - tehwalrus 10y ago
      But the police practice of collecting evidence (e.g. tricking people into giving confessions) seems completely at odds with their neutral investigator role inquisitorial justice.
      - jakewins 10y ago
        The judicial branch is meant to be neutral judges - but police and prosecutors are not part of the judicial branch. In the case of prosecutors, their job is explicitly to not be neutral. However, the 5th amendment applies there as well - they can't force you to self-incriminate, you are free to remain silent in police interrogation. However, there's nothing in the 5th amendment saying the police or courts can't ask clever questions - if you incriminate yourself because a police asked a sneaky question in interrogation, that's on you.
        tehwalrus 10y ago
        But the judge isn't free to make their own investigations, and the police are part of the prosecuting apparatus. So they evidence presented is biased, and the system is adversarial not inquisitorial. Sneaky questions versus outright lying? From what I've read, that's common practice for US police officers in suspect interviews.
jaggederest 10y ago
Well, the fifth element as a whole has a number of provisions. The popular clause against self-incrimination is but one of them. It's mostly to prevent the incentive to apply pressure to the citizenry via torture or harassment. (Parenthetically, we just harass witnesses instead now) "The history of this clause is interesting. In England, it was permissible at one point to force a confession, and this at times included torture. Our founders realized this was wrong, and so they added this clause." http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-amendment/ http://libertyfirstfl.org/2013/06/why-do-we-have-the-fifth-a...
cobbzilla 10y ago
here is great video explaining the importance of 5th amendment rights: https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ https://youtu.be/L-WlZ7Sa0SQ there's also a longer 2-part video of the entire talk including a complementary perspective from the police POV. look in the related videos/sidebar.
int_19h 10y ago
> Requiring people to answer questions truthfully is not unreasonable How do you determine whether they're answering questions truthfully or not?

jakewins 10y ago

I wonder how that works in the UK - the 5th amendment is just another version of the same law in England, triggered by the abuses at the same English court, Star Chamber. According to Lord Mustill: "A general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies." Which seems eminently applicable. Has the camera law been challenged in this way in British courts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

Lukasa 10y ago
That's not how the Westminster system works. Parliament has the right to legislate more or less as it pleases, and is not bound by any superior authority, including the courts. The courts in the U.K. cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. In this case, there is an Act of Parliament (Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1991) that makes it an offence to withhold this information. That is the end of the story: Parliament has said it, therefore it is so. (Note that in the U.K. there is currently a way out: the ECHR. I don't think they cover the right to not self-incriminate, but if they do that would be a possible challenge.) Remember: in the U.K., Parliament governs by wielding the power of the monarch. That power is formally unbounded and absolute.
- Y_Y 10y ago
  This may not be quite the case, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Co... .
  - Lukasa 10y ago
    I Am Not A Legal Scholar, but: It is not clear to me that any of the constitutional documents in the UK enshrine a right to silence. The Right to Silence in the U.K. is generally built up on common law, not statue. Every essay I have ever found on this topic refers to the right to silence in the UK as predicated on common law, not on statute, let alone on a critical constitutional document that would require explicit repeal. So yes, Parliament cannot implicitly repeal some documents. But I don't think that the Right to Silence is in any of those. Of course, citations to the contrary would be welcome! EDIT: And in fact the law has been challenged, all the way to the ECHR. The challenge failed: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/29/transport.eu

revelation 10y ago

This is not a 5th amendment issue as much as not submitting your taxes is. You can do that and not be prosecuted under the original traffic offence but failing to keep track of who's driving is simply another offence.