3 ms·

That exists to prevent the state from coercing a wrongful confession out of you. Compelling the truth out of you has no such moral hazard. I am not a constitut

That exists to prevent the state from coercing a wrongful confession out of you. Compelling the truth out of you has no such moral hazard. I am not a constitutional scholar.

runningdogx 15y ago
The truth you can tell is only a fraction of a larger truth encompassing the entire universe of facts for a case the government may be investigating. Even if your portion of that truth is completely free of any wrongdoing, when combined with the rest of the facts that may include lies or mistakes by other witnesses or incorrect analysis of physical evidence, you can end up getting into trouble for telling the truth. But we have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.' " Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U. S. 551, 557-558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422. -- Supreme Court in Ohio v Matthew Reiner, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1028 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&#3...
tomjen3 15y ago
As is often the case with constitutional protections, the protection is a result of the English monarchy's abuse of power. In this case it is to prevent another star chamber[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber] where "Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses." The fifth protect you from having to compel a statement, since you can then be declared guilty for either: any invented crime you testify you did (if you testify as they want you to); perjury (if you testify, but not what they want you to say); contempt of court (if you refuse to testify).

That exists to prevent the state from coercing a wrongful confession out of you. Compelling the truth out of you has no such moral hazard. I am not a constitutional scholar.

runningdogx 15y ago

The truth you can tell is only a fraction of a larger truth encompassing the entire universe of facts for a case the government may be investigating. Even if your portion of that truth is completely free of any wrongdoing, when combined with the rest of the facts that may include lies or mistakes by other witnesses or incorrect analysis of physical evidence, you can end up getting into trouble for telling the truth. But we have never held, as the Supreme Court of Ohio did, that the privilege is unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.' " Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957) (quoting Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U. S. 551, 557-558 (1956)) (emphasis in original). In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422. -- Supreme Court in Ohio v Matthew Reiner, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1028 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&#3...

tomjen3 15y ago

As is often the case with constitutional protections, the protection is a result of the English monarchy's abuse of power. In this case it is to prevent another star chamber[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber] where "Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses." The fifth protect you from having to compel a statement, since you can then be declared guilty for either: any invented crime you testify you did (if you testify as they want you to); perjury (if you testify, but not what they want you to say); contempt of court (if you refuse to testify).