4 ms·
I'm curious about the principle of these laws. [Later Edit: not Australian specific, something that can be applied anywhere] If the only way to convict a suspe
by close04 8y ago
I'm curious about the principle of these laws. [Later Edit: not Australian specific, something that can be applied anywhere]
If the only way to convict a suspect would be for them to self incriminate during testimony should the 5th amendment be waived?
How many other rights should be cancelled because they prevent law enforcement from having an easier job?
Banning guns to make doctors' jobs easier is out of the question but banning privacy to make policemen's jobs easier isn't?
- pcl 8y agoBear in mind that this is an Australian law, so the 5th Amendment isn't involved. I don't know much about Australian law, so I don't know if they have an equivalent right within their legal system.
- gravelc 8y agoThere is a right to silence under common law apparently.
- close04 8y agoNo, I'm fully aware it's not the US, I simply used a principle that's popular enough (from movies) that many people could relate. It's the principle that matters. I edited the original comment a little to highlight this. I'm sure that there must be something in the Australian constitution that guarantees a right for the citizens. Should it be taken away just to make someone job a little easier?
- Sacho 8y agoFor US law on this subject, check out the Third Party Doctrine. There's a good article by Orin Kerr on it, which is a defense of the doctrine but also goes over its fundamentals(https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=mlr https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...)