3 ms·
Well if you choose not to exercise your right to a swift and speedy trial you're not signing a registry saying you will never exercise the right in future trial
by jjk166 6mo ago
Well if you choose not to exercise your right to a swift and speedy trial you're not signing a registry saying you will never exercise the right in future trials. The word waive does not necessarily imply permanent relinquishment, it only implies the voluntary nature of the relinquishment.
Regardless of the word you choose to use for it, the point is that a swift and speedy trial is a right you have. There's nothing fundamentally illegal about a long trial taking place, you just can't force it upon someone. Slavery on the otherhand is explicitly forbidden. You can waive your right to freedom all day long, it doesn't make slavery any less illegal.
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
As for permitting someone to kill you, this falls very much into the same category of explicitly forbidden. Murder is illegal, and "he was asking for it" is not a valid defense. On the other hand, something like euthanasia, so long as you're in a jurisdiction that does not consider it murder, is permitted. In neither case is your right to live or lack thereof a question.
- wat10000 6mo agoYour right to life is very much a question when the state kills you. For example, George Floyd's assailants were convicted of violating his civil rights, in addition to the murderer being convicted of murder. And Floyd declaring that he waived his civil rights wouldn't have changed that. I think we should allow people to declare that they will accept a non-speedy trial. But we should allow people to assert their rights at any time even if they have previously declared they will not. It should not be possible to waive your rights in a way that's binding upon you in the future. The combination of these things would mean that effectively the state has to prosecute you within whatever window is defined as "speedy" because otherwise you could wait until that window expires, then say "whups, changed my mind, you violated my right to a speedy trial, I'm going home now." Obviously this isn't how things actually work. But how things work and how they should work are often pretty distant, especially when it comes to the justice system. I also have major problems with things like plea bargaining and binding arbitration which are other staples of the American system.