4 ms·

>credible oral testimony. So the system as it stands is you can be jailed indefinitely because a judge does not believe you actually forgot a password? That do

>credible oral testimony. So the system as it stands is you can be jailed indefinitely because a judge does not believe you actually forgot a password? That doesn't sound ideal.

EpicEng 10y ago
He gave no testimony, so there's nothing to disbelieve. Everyone has the right to not self incriminate, but that's not a get out of jail free card. Honestly, what do you envision as an ideal system? The legal system can't be structured like software. You have to be able to cope with unknowns, things that cannot be proven 100%, and people who won't cooperate. This stuff isn't binary.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Regardless of cooperation I disagree with indefinite detention. Write a law that requires you to hand over a key to law enforcement(this will likely require a constitutional amendment) with a specific penalty or follow the constitution as written.
- tripzilch 10y ago
  well you can start by codifying your laws and getting rid of juries. there's different types of legal systems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) civil law / roman law, as used in a large part of the world including Europe. (different from civil law as the term is used in the US) things are quite a lot more clear cut if you just codify (yes, exactly like code, our law books look like code in human language, precisely worded) instead of reinterpreting the law on case by case basis and some ancient writings reinterpreted to fit a modern setting (even they were made by smart folks, it's still almost religion)
  - sjy 10y ago
    This doesn't answer the parent's point. Most cases turn on the facts, even in civil law systems. Defendants still get locked up when judges don't believe them, and judges can still get the facts wrong. Most U.S. federal law is codified, including the contempt provision that applied here (18 U.S. Code § 401). Codification does not remove the need for courts to resolve ambiguities. The constitutional right in this case is a good example: there is no explicit privilege against self-incrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights, yet the European Court of Human Rights has found that Europeans do have this right, and has explained its scope by 'reinterpreting the law on a case by case basis' [1]. [1] http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH.30-3.pdf http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH....

>credible oral testimony. So the system as it stands is you can be jailed indefinitely because a judge does not believe you actually forgot a password? That doesn't sound ideal.

EpicEng 10y ago

He gave no testimony, so there's nothing to disbelieve. Everyone has the right to not self incriminate, but that's not a get out of jail free card. Honestly, what do you envision as an ideal system? The legal system can't be structured like software. You have to be able to cope with unknowns, things that cannot be proven 100%, and people who won't cooperate. This stuff isn't binary.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Regardless of cooperation I disagree with indefinite detention. Write a law that requires you to hand over a key to law enforcement(this will likely require a constitutional amendment) with a specific penalty or follow the constitution as written.
tripzilch 10y ago
well you can start by codifying your laws and getting rid of juries. there's different types of legal systems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) civil law / roman law, as used in a large part of the world including Europe. (different from civil law as the term is used in the US) things are quite a lot more clear cut if you just codify (yes, exactly like code, our law books look like code in human language, precisely worded) instead of reinterpreting the law on case by case basis and some ancient writings reinterpreted to fit a modern setting (even they were made by smart folks, it's still almost religion)
- sjy 10y ago
  This doesn't answer the parent's point. Most cases turn on the facts, even in civil law systems. Defendants still get locked up when judges don't believe them, and judges can still get the facts wrong. Most U.S. federal law is codified, including the contempt provision that applied here (18 U.S. Code § 401). Codification does not remove the need for courts to resolve ambiguities. The constitutional right in this case is a good example: there is no explicit privilege against self-incrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights, yet the European Court of Human Rights has found that Europeans do have this right, and has explained its scope by 'reinterpreting the law on a case by case basis' [1]. [1] http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH.30-3.pdf http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH....