3 ms·
It's because the 5th Amendment is there to prevent the state from torturing you into confession for a crime and then using that as evidence against you. i.e. th
by dataflow 3y ago
It's because the 5th Amendment is there to prevent the state from torturing you into confession for a crime and then using that as evidence against you. i.e. the point is to ensure the evidence is genuine and not a false confession given under duress, since most innocent people will say anything to stop pain. (This isn't obvious from the text, though if you ponder "why would they have included this seemingly random narrow right", you can deduce the explanation. But there's bigger historical context re: the Star Chamber if you're interested in looking that up.)
Meaning: its point isn't to prevent access to real evidence. It's not an attempt to grant you privacy. It's an attempt to ensure justice is served correctly.
This is also why you lose that right when you're granted immunity. The state can force you to provide testimony in that case.
Corollary here is that it's actually quite surprising courts are willing to side with the accused here. It's probably only a matter of time before rulings come to the contrary. If you care about privacy as a human right, you really need another amendment to make it solid.
- atticora 3y ago> If you care about privacy as a human right, you really need another amendment to make it solid. You would need some kind of catch-all amendments stating that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others, and that the powers not delegated to the feds are reserved to the States or to the people. You could put them right at the end of the original amendments for emphasis as a closing statement of the Constitution. But if we enacted those who would ever enforce them? The feds would probably treat them as if they didn't exist.
- dataflow 3y ago> But if we enacted those who would ever enforce them? The feds would probably treat them as if they didn't exist. If you make them vague then it'll be easy to interpret them narrowly. If you make them crystal clear, courts would presumably enforce them, like they have in the past.
- PopePompus 3y agoYup, the US Constitution definitely needs a right to privacy amendment. It is of course spectacularly difficult to amend, but an amendment that ensures a right to choose abortion (and other reproductive privacy issues) plus strong digital privacy rights might garner a coalition of both pro-choice people and libertarians, and that could be enough to get it passed.
- rgblambda 3y agoI don't see how the 5th amendment protects you against torture. You can choose to waive your constitutional right to not incriminate yourself, so surely you can also be tortured into waiving the same right?
- dataflow 3y ago> I don't see how the 5th amendment protects you against torture. You can choose to waive your constitutional right to not incriminate yourself, so surely you can also be tortured into waiving the same right? The short response here is: How often do you see that happening in the US? But in any case, note that I'm explaining what it was intended to do and what its meanings and implications are. Whether it is successful in achieving its goal is beside the point for this conversation.
- anticensor 3y agoYeah, European formulations of right to silence solve that by having it inalienable.