9 ms·
I dispute your assumption that the courts need to be able to compel behaviour. At best they need to be able to compel inaction, but they should never be able to
by gdhbcc 7y ago
I dispute your assumption that the courts need to be able to compel behaviour. At best they need to be able to compel inaction, but they should never be able to compel action
- austinheap 7y agoYou also dispute vaccines based on your comment history which would indicate an unwillingness to engage in rational conversation or to accept scientific facts.
- EpicEng 7y agoHow do you envision that playing out? If the court has no power to compel testimony they have very little power in general.
- magduf 7y agoHow do you figure? They have the power to allow prosecutors to present physical evidence, and to allow testimony from cooperative witnesses. Then they have the power to have a trial based on this evidence, and then find a suspect guilty or not guilty. If they find the suspect guilty, they have the power to impose a sentence. What more do they need? Compelling testimony from an uncooperative witness isn't necessary for a case, nor is it even very helpful: such a witness can't be considered reliable or trustworthy.
- EpicEng 7y agoAnd what if you can't obtain that evidence because the person in possession won't hand it over? What if your only 'witness' is a corporate entity? What if your witness just doesn't like cops? Probably a hundred more scenarios I can't come up with at the moment. In your world guilty parties walk because the state has no power to make anyone do anything. Everything is based upon the prosecutor being Sherlock Holmes and always finding exactly what they need. The real world doesn't work that way.
- magduf 7y agoI have a really hard time believing that the vast majority of convictions depend on uncooperative witness testimony.
- EpicEng 7y agoWho ever said "vast majority"?
- jessaustin 7y ago"Everything is based upon the prosecutor being Sherlock Holmes and always finding exactly what they need." Are the italicized qualifiers intended to mean something other than that?
- electrograv 7y agoHow is “compelling inaction” anything but a synonym for “prison”? I’m no expert here and have not thought about this extensively, so I have no strong opinion here. That said, at first glance: * It seems reasonable that courts need some power to compel people to cooperate with investigations — otherwise they’d be unable to act on certain kinds of crimes, conspiracies, etc. * What alternate justice system would you suggest specifically, which is presumably more fair and effective that this one?
- magduf 7y agoI'm not sure how compelling someone to testify is at all productive. If someone isn't willing to voluntarily testify, then what makes you think their testimony will be reliable and true? If I were sitting on a jury, I would take the testimony of someone unwilling to testify with a large grain of salt. As for acting on certain kinds of crimes, the job of prosecutors is to gather evidence, and find people willing to testify, to support their case. They already do this, sometimes offering things in exchange for testimony (such as immunity for their part in the crime), to get witnesses to cooperate and offer testimony that can be believed. If they can't get someone to voluntarily testify, however, it seems counterproductive to me to toss them in jail to punish them for not cooperating; from the outside, that to me makes it look like their case isn't very good to begin with.
- votepaunchy 7y agoNote that lying under oath is also a crime, so also not a good plan.
- magduf 7y agoMaybe not, but people absolutely do it all the time. Convictions for perjury are rare, probably because it's way too much work to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness absolutely knew they were lying when they made a statement that isn't corroborated by other evidence or witnesses.
- noobiemcfoob 7y ago
- mikeash 7y agoI’m on trial for murder. I don’t like my chances, so I’ll just stay home instead. They can’t make me show up, so I’m home free!
- magduf 7y agoWhat does this have to do with anything? If you're on trial for murder, the prosecution would never call on you to testify. Why would they? Of course you're going to claim that you didn't do it. Your testimony would be useless. Murderers are tried with physical evidence linking them to the crime, and witness testimony from other people. Murderers don't even need to be present to be convicted; this happens sometimes if they're considered a danger in the courtroom, or have fled.
- mikeash 7y agoThe comment I replied to disputed the general notion that courts need to be able to compel behavior. From a quick search, it appears that a trial in the US cannot begin without the defendant present, although it may proceed if they leave afterwards depending on circumstances.
- magduf 7y agoI don't think that's true: they have something called "trial in absentia". It doesn't happen often though.
- mikeash 7y agoI’m aware. The fact that there’s a name for it doesn’t mean it’s allowed in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia
- noobiemcfoob 7y agoCan a court coerce a murder witness to testimony with imprisonment?