Your 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 add

Your 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.