5 ms·

Waiving rights is weird. It’s well understood that you can’t waive your right not to be a slave, for example. Why should you be able to waive any right? The 6th

Waiving rights is weird. It’s well understood that you can’t waive your right not to be a slave, for example. Why should you be able to waive any right? The 6th amendment doesn’t say “unless the accused doesn’t want it.”

cogman10 7mo ago
Because it's presumably beneficial. It gives your lawyers extra time to prepare for the case or to potentially settle on more favorable terms.
- wat10000 7mo ago
  Waiving your right not to be a slave could be beneficial too.
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    You can become someone's slave if you really want to. The only part that can't be enforced is you can't be coerced to stay. Plenty of cults have slaves in the US. But because the are willing, nothing is done about it.
    - ahhhhnoooo 7mo ago
      Heck, plenty of us companies still rely on slave labor. Look at Aramark's use of prisoners, for example.
      - wat10000 7mo ago
        That's an explicit carveout in the Constitution allowing slavery as punishment for a crime, not someone waiving their rights.
    - wat10000 7mo ago
      This reminds me of Futurama: "You know the worst thing about being a slave? They make you work, but they don't pay you or let you go." "That's the only thing about being a slave!" So yeah, you can legally be a slave as long as you leave out the one part that makes it slavery.
- walletdrainer 7mo ago
  If you have a right to both a fair trial and a speedy trial, there should be no trial that does not provide both.
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    The speed which enables the most fair outcome overall is subject to interpretation. More time to prepare your case is probably good, but the longer the process drags out, the greater portion of your finite life you've lost to the process. Weighing these two factors, with all the other various factors, can't be done objectively for a generalized case that can apply to all real cases, hence giving the accused some amount of say over the matter.
jjk166 7mo ago
You can waive your right not to be a slave, but no one can gain the right to legally own slaves. The 13th amendment doesn't guarantee the rights of people to live free, it bans the practice of slavery. If you find someone living in slavery you don't arrest them for being a slave, you arrest the person who enslaved them. If someone asks you to do something illegal for them, you are obliged to say no; even if they are the only person directly impacted and they insist they want it, it is not in your authority to grant the request. You can choose not to exercise any right, that's what makes it a right. Freedom of religion does not imply an obligation to practice religion, freedom of speech does not compel speech, right to bear arms does not imply an obligation to bear arms, etc. Your right to a swift and speedy trial is likewise something you can choose not to exercise. Things would be different if the law was all trials must be swift and speedy.
- wat10000 7mo ago
  By that logic, you can waive the right to a speedy trial, but it would be illegal for the state to try you in a non-speedy fashion.
  - jjk166 7mo ago
    > Your right to a swift and speedy trial is likewise something you can choose not to exercise. Things would be different if the law was all trials must be swift and speedy.
    - wat10000 7mo ago
      I think there's a difference between waiving a right and not exercising a right. If I don't own a gun, I'm not waiving my right to own a gun. Waiving my right would be something like, signing up for a registry which makes it actually illegal for me to own a gun, and I could go to prison if I buy one. I can decide not to exercise my right to life by jumping off a bridge, but I can't generally waive my right to life and make it legal for someone else to kill. In short: you aren't required to exercise your rights, but someone else isn't allowed to violate them regardless of whether you're exercising them or not.

cogman10 7mo ago

Because it's presumably beneficial. It gives your lawyers extra time to prepare for the case or to potentially settle on more favorable terms.

wat10000 7mo ago
Waiving your right not to be a slave could be beneficial too.
- cogman10 7mo ago
  You can become someone's slave if you really want to. The only part that can't be enforced is you can't be coerced to stay. Plenty of cults have slaves in the US. But because the are willing, nothing is done about it.
  - ahhhhnoooo 7mo ago
    Heck, plenty of us companies still rely on slave labor. Look at Aramark's use of prisoners, for example.
    - wat10000 7mo ago
      That's an explicit carveout in the Constitution allowing slavery as punishment for a crime, not someone waiving their rights.
  - wat10000 7mo ago
    This reminds me of Futurama: "You know the worst thing about being a slave? They make you work, but they don't pay you or let you go." "That's the only thing about being a slave!" So yeah, you can legally be a slave as long as you leave out the one part that makes it slavery.
walletdrainer 7mo ago
If you have a right to both a fair trial and a speedy trial, there should be no trial that does not provide both.
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  The speed which enables the most fair outcome overall is subject to interpretation. More time to prepare your case is probably good, but the longer the process drags out, the greater portion of your finite life you've lost to the process. Weighing these two factors, with all the other various factors, can't be done objectively for a generalized case that can apply to all real cases, hence giving the accused some amount of say over the matter.

jjk166 7mo ago

You can waive your right not to be a slave, but no one can gain the right to legally own slaves. The 13th amendment doesn't guarantee the rights of people to live free, it bans the practice of slavery. If you find someone living in slavery you don't arrest them for being a slave, you arrest the person who enslaved them. If someone asks you to do something illegal for them, you are obliged to say no; even if they are the only person directly impacted and they insist they want it, it is not in your authority to grant the request. You can choose not to exercise any right, that's what makes it a right. Freedom of religion does not imply an obligation to practice religion, freedom of speech does not compel speech, right to bear arms does not imply an obligation to bear arms, etc. Your right to a swift and speedy trial is likewise something you can choose not to exercise. Things would be different if the law was all trials must be swift and speedy.

wat10000 7mo ago
By that logic, you can waive the right to a speedy trial, but it would be illegal for the state to try you in a non-speedy fashion.
- jjk166 7mo ago
  > Your right to a swift and speedy trial is likewise something you can choose not to exercise. Things would be different if the law was all trials must be swift and speedy.
  - wat10000 7mo ago
    I think there's a difference between waiving a right and not exercising a right. If I don't own a gun, I'm not waiving my right to own a gun. Waiving my right would be something like, signing up for a registry which makes it actually illegal for me to own a gun, and I could go to prison if I buy one. I can decide not to exercise my right to life by jumping off a bridge, but I can't generally waive my right to life and make it legal for someone else to kill. In short: you aren't required to exercise your rights, but someone else isn't allowed to violate them regardless of whether you're exercising them or not.