3 ms·
Yeah no. That goes against the 5th
by cranberryturkey 3y ago
Yeah no. That goes against the 5th
- anotherhue 3y agoYeah, the phone goes against the 5th finger.
- coldtea 3y agoThe 5th is words on paper. The people who write the laws or enforce them can do whatever they want by "interpeting" it or just ignoring it.
- letsSpy 3y ago[flagged]
- proc0 3y agoIsn't that every law? What's the point, are you justifying a tyrannical government?
- coldtea 3y agoThe point is something being "against the 5th" ain't gonna change anything if those that have the power want to do it. What does help is the power balances - how strongly the people will protest, it coming from one party and the other fighting it, and so on. And to answer the flagged guy: "so that means, as a regular citizen, I can interpret the laws how I want? since they are also words on paper." No, it obviously means those that have the political power can interpret the laws how they want. So unless you have that kind of power, you'll need to stand by the interpretation others make of it.
- SuperNinKenDo 3y agoTo be fair, discourse is an important element of power, because political institutions are held up by norms. This is why even totalitarian and authoritarian regimes will often attempt to find legal precent and jutsification for their actions.
- proc0 3y agoSure but under the current system the 5th still applies in other cases, granted in the context of this thread it was ruled that it does not, but it still went through the courts. OP was wrong because a fingerprint isn't really speech, I'm guessing.
- llamaimperative 3y agoIn theory sure, in practice no. Laws and precedents stand for long, long times, including this one which is not even close to a groundbreaking or controversial ruling.
- tedunangst 3y agoUnfortunately your analysis is too late. If only you had informed the judges sooner, they could have issued a correct ruling.
- torstenvl 3y agoWhat part of the Fifth Amendment do you believe applies here?
- defiamazing 3y ago[flagged]
- cranberryturkey 3y agothe right to remain silent and the search and seizure protections...
- meepmorp 3y agoNobody was compelled to give evidence against themselves. Fingerprints are external, physical features - it's no different than being made to give up a key to a locked door pursuant to a warrant. And parolees are released under supervision, with law enforcement having greater authority to search them and their property.
- cranberryturkey 3y agoexactly the police would need a warrant to unlock my phone, same as my front door.
- meepmorp 3y agoYou missed the bit about the guy in the story being in parole - parolees have fewer 4th amendment protections than other citizens, as a condition of their early release from prison. Different situations are different.
- torstenvl 3y agoYou think this violates "No person shall be . . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"? How so? What witnesseth a fingerprint?
- ImJamal 3y agoNo it doesn't. This is a parole who is only out of prison because he accepted that cops can search his property at any time. If he doesn't agree to that he can go back to jail and serve out his sentence.