5 ms·

As potentially upsetting this all may be, Isn't the truth, the truth? I mean, did she do the property crime or not? If she did why do we have a problem with t

by fargle 5y ago

As potentially upsetting this all may be, Isn't the truth, the truth? I mean, did she do the property crime or not? If she did why do we have a problem with the way we got to the truth? In this world, or the world of the last 10,000 years, you should live life as if everybody can see everything. If you don't like that, well too badsy. Be nicer.

txru 5y ago
One could use an argument much like this to argue for compelling other self-incriminating testimony.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  There's nothing to argue - you definitely can be compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence including blood samples; the fifth amendment exemption is solely about actual testimony.
  - ibejoeb 5y ago
    Right: you can be compelled to give blood, for example. But the fourth should apply. That being said, we probably don't have too much time before we have to distinguish between the notions of 1) being compelled to testify and 2) having one's own account being taken without the need to actively testify.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      I believe that they are fully distinguished already; taking over your accounts without the need to actively testify seems comparable to taking the contents of your safe or contents of your private correspondence or contents of your storage box at someone else's place - clearly permissible if (but only if) there's a warrant for that.
chrismcb 5y ago
In this case it "worked" but what about the false positives, the cases where it didn't work. This is why we have rules against illegal searches and the right to remain silent.
mafuy 5y ago
That's such a privileged point of view. Do you not see how minorities will suffer from being exposed, unable to hide? Human society is not ready for your idea.
- jpambrun 5y ago
  It is not clear to me how this is more detrimental to some groups more than others. Can you elaborate?
pfranz 5y ago
> If she did why do we have a problem with the way we got to the truth? Do you think in the future people will decline rape exams knowing their info will be put into a database that could be used against them indefinitely?
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  I'd say only someone who has done something so horrible that they fear getting caught worse than they want their rapists caught. It's a trap of their own doing.
  - krageon 5y ago
    You never know what will be illegal later. Especially when you are in a vulnerable class (i.e. already a target), you can be fairly certain you will be found already "guilty" of something once someone powerful enough starts to dislike you. As such, providing such things and cooperating with the police is essentially assisting your own oppression. It's a stupid idea, regardless of your own conscience.
  - kuschkufan 5y ago
    You did not answer the questions though. Answer whether you think if people will decline a rape kit exam, knowing the DNA from that could be used against them in the future. I.e. crimes or whatever circumstances that have not happened yet.
    - RickJWagner 5y ago
      Sorry, you're right. I'll now reply directly. I think it depends. If the person in question knows they are guilty of some crime that carries a heavy penalty, then they may decline the rape kit. If the person in question does not know they are guilty of some crime that carries a heavy penalty, then they likely will not decline a rape kit. I think people who commit crimes cause damage to society, so I tend to have little sympathy for schemes to let them escape justice, FWIW.
  - pfranz 5y ago
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Scary opinion I think it is a simple privacy issue. Privacy is the idea that there should be intentional barriers between the government and "the truth". The government may catch more criminals if it has full access to "the truth", but there are also downsides. To avid the downsides, we limit the ways in which governments and individuals can access/obtain "the truth". This is why we have search warrants opposed to universal surveillance.

by fargle 5y ago

txru 5y ago

One could use an argument much like this to argue for compelling other self-incriminating testimony.

PeterisP 5y ago
There's nothing to argue - you definitely can be compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence including blood samples; the fifth amendment exemption is solely about actual testimony.
- ibejoeb 5y ago
  Right: you can be compelled to give blood, for example. But the fourth should apply. That being said, we probably don't have too much time before we have to distinguish between the notions of 1) being compelled to testify and 2) having one's own account being taken without the need to actively testify.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    I believe that they are fully distinguished already; taking over your accounts without the need to actively testify seems comparable to taking the contents of your safe or contents of your private correspondence or contents of your storage box at someone else's place - clearly permissible if (but only if) there's a warrant for that.

chrismcb 5y ago

In this case it "worked" but what about the false positives, the cases where it didn't work. This is why we have rules against illegal searches and the right to remain silent.

mafuy 5y ago

That's such a privileged point of view. Do you not see how minorities will suffer from being exposed, unable to hide? Human society is not ready for your idea.

jpambrun 5y ago
It is not clear to me how this is more detrimental to some groups more than others. Can you elaborate?

pfranz 5y ago

> If she did why do we have a problem with the way we got to the truth? Do you think in the future people will decline rape exams knowing their info will be put into a database that could be used against them indefinitely?

RickJWagner 5y ago
I'd say only someone who has done something so horrible that they fear getting caught worse than they want their rapists caught. It's a trap of their own doing.
- krageon 5y ago
  You never know what will be illegal later. Especially when you are in a vulnerable class (i.e. already a target), you can be fairly certain you will be found already "guilty" of something once someone powerful enough starts to dislike you. As such, providing such things and cooperating with the police is essentially assisting your own oppression. It's a stupid idea, regardless of your own conscience.
- kuschkufan 5y ago
  You did not answer the questions though. Answer whether you think if people will decline a rape kit exam, knowing the DNA from that could be used against them in the future. I.e. crimes or whatever circumstances that have not happened yet.
  - RickJWagner 5y ago
    Sorry, you're right. I'll now reply directly. I think it depends. If the person in question knows they are guilty of some crime that carries a heavy penalty, then they may decline the rape kit. If the person in question does not know they are guilty of some crime that carries a heavy penalty, then they likely will not decline a rape kit. I think people who commit crimes cause damage to society, so I tend to have little sympathy for schemes to let them escape justice, FWIW.
- pfranz 5y ago

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Scary opinion I think it is a simple privacy issue. Privacy is the idea that there should be intentional barriers between the government and "the truth". The government may catch more criminals if it has full access to "the truth", but there are also downsides. To avid the downsides, we limit the ways in which governments and individuals can access/obtain "the truth". This is why we have search warrants opposed to universal surveillance.