Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Self Incrimination

Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 6:34:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

What exactly is the contention? Legally you are innocent Till proven guilty. Why should you tell on yourself if the state is making the allegation?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:20:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

They could bypass if it was declared a possible act of war and place it under the forum of the military.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:22:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
And her acts with Benghazi were an act of war, seeing they affected national security and killed CIA agents. I'd go after her as an act of war with treason charges. Punishable by death penalty.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:33:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

The problem isn't the Fifth Amendment, the problem is that the DOJ gave EVERYONE of importance in the Hillary investigations immunity. The evidence gained from the investigation was enough to put everyone behind bars, unfortunately, the Lauretta Lynch gave all the guilty parties immunity, then failed to void their immunity agreements when they violated the terms.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 11:50:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 11:33:04 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

The problem isn't the Fifth Amendment, the problem is that the DOJ gave EVERYONE of importance in the Hillary investigations immunity. The evidence gained from the investigation was enough to put everyone behind bars, unfortunately, the Lauretta Lynch gave all the guilty parties immunity, then failed to void their immunity agreements when they violated the terms.

I'd say she's the biggest liar I've ever seen, but by terms somehow magical and beyond all odds, Hillary found a way beyond all comprehension and statistical probability to make her look like a million dollars to a man in poverty.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 12:05:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 11:50:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/30/2016 11:33:04 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

The problem isn't the Fifth Amendment, the problem is that the DOJ gave EVERYONE of importance in the Hillary investigations immunity. The evidence gained from the investigation was enough to put everyone behind bars, unfortunately, the Lauretta Lynch gave all the guilty parties immunity, then failed to void their immunity agreements when they violated the terms.

I'd say she's the biggest liar I've ever seen, but by terms somehow magical and beyond all odds, Hillary found a way beyond all comprehension and statistical probability to make her look like a million dollars to a man in poverty.

She's been getting away with criminal activities alongside Bill since Whitewater Development in the 1970's.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2016 12:13:46 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I thought the thread was about the 5th, not Clinton. She's a piece but everyone has the first 10 amendments guaranteed, even when those people disgust us.
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 1:05:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/1/2016 12:13:46 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I thought the thread was about the 5th, not Clinton. She's a piece but everyone has the first 10 amendments guaranteed, even when those people disgust us.

True, it is not completely about the 5th Amendment, but just the self incrimination clause. So, if you did something wrong... or lets say you did nothing wrong, but you don't want to incriminate yourself or anyone else, all you would have to do is plead the fifth. It should be an admission of guilt in some way. If you witnessed a crime, but failed to report it, you may have been breaking the law in some way. Then you have the ability of claiming the fifth amendment. Or if you wanted to protect someone else, you could make it seem as though, it was you who had broken the law, and no one could force you to answer the question. I just think it is a flaw in the system, and anyone in the wrong should be held accountable.

The bulk of this post did stem from the Clintons, but it is something that has been on my mind for quite some time.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 6:50:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 1:05:43 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/1/2016 12:13:46 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I thought the thread was about the 5th, not Clinton. She's a piece but everyone has the first 10 amendments guaranteed, even when those people disgust us.

True, it is not completely about the 5th Amendment, but just the self incrimination clause. So, if you did something wrong... or lets say you did nothing wrong, but you don't want to incriminate yourself or anyone else, all you would have to do is plead the fifth. It should be an admission of guilt in some way. If you witnessed a crime, but failed to report it, you may have been breaking the law in some way. Then you have the ability of claiming the fifth amendment. Or if you wanted to protect someone else, you could make it seem as though, it was you who had broken the law, and no one could force you to answer the question. I just think it is a flaw in the system, and anyone in the wrong should be held accountable.

The bulk of this post did stem from the Clintons, but it is something that has been on my mind for quite some time.

In your example about witnessing a crime that's different than self incrimination. If I am charged, by the state, I do not have to incriminate myself to bolster the state. This is the whole meaning of innocent till proven guilty. Prove I'm guilty or I walk.
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 9:36:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 6:50:04 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/3/2016 1:05:43 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/1/2016 12:13:46 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I thought the thread was about the 5th, not Clinton. She's a piece but everyone has the first 10 amendments guaranteed, even when those people disgust us.

True, it is not completely about the 5th Amendment, but just the self incrimination clause. So, if you did something wrong... or lets say you did nothing wrong, but you don't want to incriminate yourself or anyone else, all you would have to do is plead the fifth. It should be an admission of guilt in some way. If you witnessed a crime, but failed to report it, you may have been breaking the law in some way. Then you have the ability of claiming the fifth amendment. Or if you wanted to protect someone else, you could make it seem as though, it was you who had broken the law, and no one could force you to answer the question. I just think it is a flaw in the system, and anyone in the wrong should be held accountable.

The bulk of this post did stem from the Clintons, but it is something that has been on my mind for quite some time.

In your example about witnessing a crime that's different than self incrimination. If I am charged, by the state, I do not have to incriminate myself to bolster the state. This is the whole meaning of innocent till proven guilty. Prove I'm guilty or I walk.

Yes, but if being subpena'd to answer questions in a criminal investigation as a supposed witness in someone else's investigation incriminates yourself for some reason, than this is what happens. Everyone pleads the fifth, even if you are not the one under investigation. I think if you are under oath and questioned, a person should have to answer the question. Otherwise, face some kind of penalty.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 9:36:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

It's pretty insulting watching everyone involved with immunity and then James Comey, director of the FBI wanted immunity. What the hell?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 9:42:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 9:36:14 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/3/2016 6:50:04 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/3/2016 1:05:43 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/1/2016 12:13:46 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I thought the thread was about the 5th, not Clinton. She's a piece but everyone has the first 10 amendments guaranteed, even when those people disgust us.

True, it is not completely about the 5th Amendment, but just the self incrimination clause. So, if you did something wrong... or lets say you did nothing wrong, but you don't want to incriminate yourself or anyone else, all you would have to do is plead the fifth. It should be an admission of guilt in some way. If you witnessed a crime, but failed to report it, you may have been breaking the law in some way. Then you have the ability of claiming the fifth amendment. Or if you wanted to protect someone else, you could make it seem as though, it was you who had broken the law, and no one could force you to answer the question. I just think it is a flaw in the system, and anyone in the wrong should be held accountable.

The bulk of this post did stem from the Clintons, but it is something that has been on my mind for quite some time.

In your example about witnessing a crime that's different than self incrimination. If I am charged, by the state, I do not have to incriminate myself to bolster the state. This is the whole meaning of innocent till proven guilty. Prove I'm guilty or I walk.

Yes, but if being subpena'd to answer questions in a criminal investigation as a supposed witness in someone else's investigation incriminates yourself for some reason, than this is what happens. Everyone pleads the fifth, even if you are not the one under investigation. I think if you are under oath and questioned, a person should have to answer the question. Otherwise, face some kind of penalty.

Us jurisprudence disagrees. the 5th is a restriction on the federal government, not something we are granted.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 10:31:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 9:36:14 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/3/2016 6:50:04 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/3/2016 1:05:43 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/1/2016 12:13:46 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
I thought the thread was about the 5th, not Clinton. She's a piece but everyone has the first 10 amendments guaranteed, even when those people disgust us.

True, it is not completely about the 5th Amendment, but just the self incrimination clause. So, if you did something wrong... or lets say you did nothing wrong, but you don't want to incriminate yourself or anyone else, all you would have to do is plead the fifth. It should be an admission of guilt in some way. If you witnessed a crime, but failed to report it, you may have been breaking the law in some way. Then you have the ability of claiming the fifth amendment. Or if you wanted to protect someone else, you could make it seem as though, it was you who had broken the law, and no one could force you to answer the question. I just think it is a flaw in the system, and anyone in the wrong should be held accountable.

The bulk of this post did stem from the Clintons, but it is something that has been on my mind for quite some time.

In your example about witnessing a crime that's different than self incrimination. If I am charged, by the state, I do not have to incriminate myself to bolster the state. This is the whole meaning of innocent till proven guilty. Prove I'm guilty or I walk.

Yes, but if being subpena'd to answer questions in a criminal investigation as a supposed witness in someone else's investigation incriminates yourself for some reason, than this is what happens. Everyone pleads the fifth, even if you are not the one under investigation. I think if you are under oath and questioned, a person should have to answer the question. Otherwise, face some kind of penalty.

How do you propose getting people to honestly admit guilt in court? Remember, they can say whatever they want. It doesn't have to be an honest answer if the option to remain silent is a crime as well.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2016 10:36:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

There are two reasons people shouldn't have to testify against themselves (or their spouse).

1. Innocent people can be tricked into incriminating themselves.

2. Guilty people will just commit perjury anyway.
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 12:37:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/3/2016 10:36:26 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

There are two reasons people shouldn't have to testify against themselves (or their spouse).

1. Innocent people can be tricked into incriminating themselves.

2. Guilty people will just commit perjury anyway.

1. How can innocent people be tricked into incriminating themselves? That means they are not innocent people.
2. If they commit perjury, hopefully something during the investigation regarding what they said will come to light after further research, but at least the investigators have a little something to go off of regarding what went wrong and why they are investigating in the first place. If they plead the fifth, than they are just admitting that they have done something wrong, or may be hiding something to protect someone else. This makes it much harder to continue an investigation.

I understand that it is there to protect us from our own stupidity, but it shouldn't be abused in a way that can hinder investigations into a certain matters, especially when it comes to a corrupt administration or questionable goings on in a Government institution created to serve the people.
Purch
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 2:13:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I think you're wrongly stating the intent of the 5th Amendment clause.

It's not intended to give anyone a "get out of free card.". It's intended to give people an incentive to testify , without the fear of being prosecuted due to incrimination. This is why you see prosecutors giving people immunity, for their testimony rather than having no testimony what so ever.

Think about it logically, in most situations if a person was told they would go to jail, if they testified the truth about a situation, then how many would actually go through with it? You're basically asking someone to confess for a crime, without any safeguards put in place. No lawyer would ever suggest a person testify an incriminate themselves, without a deal first being put on the table.

The way this plays itself out is nearly always in the "bigger fish" context. What I mean by that, is lower level criminals are usually given a deal, in return for testifying against an even bigger criminal. That's because no one is gonna testify against their own operations, if that means that they themselves are gonna put forward an admission of guilt in which they'll be prosecuted for.

Protection of self incrimination all ties back into the protection of your right to a fair trial. The state can't compel you to testify and incriminate yourself in a different case, to then use that testimony to convict you. For you to have a fair trial, the evidence presented can't be produced through coercion.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 8:31:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 12:37:20 PM, Davery79 wrote:
1. How can innocent people be tricked into incriminating themselves? That means they are not innocent people.

A prosecutor can ask leading questions to get the answer they want. If they think you're guilty, they'll hammer you over and over until you misspeak.

2. If they commit perjury, hopefully something during the investigation regarding what they said will come to light after further research, but at least the investigators have a little something to go off of regarding what went wrong and why they are investigating in the first place. If they plead the fifth, than they are just admitting that they have done something wrong, or may be hiding something to protect someone else. This makes it much harder to continue an investigation.

Not the point. If a man knows he'll do life for murder, you cannot reasonably expect him to confess to the killing. Of course he'll lie, so why put him in that position in the first place? It just makes things simpler.

I understand that it is there to protect us from our own stupidity, but it shouldn't be abused in a way that can hinder investigations into a certain matters, especially when it comes to a corrupt administration or questionable goings on in a Government institution created to serve the people.

Hillary Clinton has as much right to plead her innocence as the rest of us, even if she is corrupt. Don't begrudge people their rights just because you don't like them, or else the same might happen to you.
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 9:02:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 2:13:51 PM, Purch wrote:
I think you're wrongly stating the intent of the 5th Amendment clause.

It's not intended to give anyone a "get out of free card.". It's intended to give people an incentive to testify , without the fear of being prosecuted due to incrimination. This is why you see prosecutors giving people immunity, for their testimony rather than having no testimony what so ever.

Think about it logically, in most situations if a person was told they would go to jail, if they testified the truth about a situation, then how many would actually go through with it? You're basically asking someone to confess for a crime, without any safeguards put in place. No lawyer would ever suggest a person testify an incriminate themselves, without a deal first being put on the table.

The way this plays itself out is nearly always in the "bigger fish" context. What I mean by that, is lower level criminals are usually given a deal, in return for testifying against an even bigger criminal. That's because no one is gonna testify against their own operations, if that means that they themselves are gonna put forward an admission of guilt in which they'll be prosecuted for.

Protection of self incrimination all ties back into the protection of your right to a fair trial. The state can't compel you to testify and incriminate yourself in a different case, to then use that testimony to convict you. For you to have a fair trial, the evidence presented can't be produced through coercion.

I do understand that, which is why I agree with it... partly, and my past posts have been poorly worded. I admit that. I guess I am just angered at all of these people tied to the administration pleading the fifth, after already being granted immunity. Are they that scared? I have heard of a lot of people dying mysteriously that are in some way tied to the Clintons, but once the cat is out of the bag, do they really think they are still in danger? (I guess it really isn't out of the bag, because Comey left it in there). Do they think they will never get a job again because they answered a question truthfully after already being granted immunity? Then, it did not lead to any arrests or indictments. I would think, anyone pleading the fifth at any time would pretty much prove that someone, somewhere has knowingly broken the law.

Just one example below. I also understand that they do not have to speak to anyone about this if they don't have to, so the below article does not really apply, but it is provocative.
http://www.cnn.com......
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 9:22:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 8:31:33 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/4/2016 12:37:20 PM, Davery79 wrote:
1. How can innocent people be tricked into incriminating themselves? That means they are not innocent people.

A prosecutor can ask leading questions to get the answer they want. If they think you're guilty, they'll hammer you over and over until you misspeak.

They do that anyway. Misspeak? You could accidentally say that you did it, if you didn't?

2. If they commit perjury, hopefully something during the investigation regarding what they said will come to light after further research, but at least the investigators have a little something to go off of regarding what went wrong and why they are investigating in the first place. If they plead the fifth, than they are just admitting that they have done something wrong, or may be hiding something to protect someone else. This makes it much harder to continue an investigation.

Not the point. If a man knows he'll do life for murder, you cannot reasonably expect him to confess to the killing. Of course he'll lie, so why put him in that position in the first place? It just makes things simpler.
I was specifically referring to potential witnesses, not the person on trial.

Might as well charge every single person pleading innocent, that is found guilty with perjury in addition to the sentence they receive. I know there are plea deals offered for admission before hand, but the state/feds should tack on another 5 years to whatever sentence they got for lying under oath.

I understand that it is there to protect us from our own stupidity, but it shouldn't be abused in a way that can hinder investigations into a certain matters, especially when it comes to a corrupt administration or questionable goings on in a Government institution created to serve the people.

Hillary Clinton has as much right to plead her innocence as the rest of us, even if she is corrupt. Don't begrudge people their rights just because you don't like them, or else the same might happen to you.

Not begrudging on her rights, but from what I understand, she was not treated the same as you or I. They didn't even record her under oath testimony with the FBI, it sounded like it was more of a tea party, or it could have been a threat..... "If I become President, say goodbye to your job Comey"... If it were anyone else, it would have been treated by the book.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 9:38:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 9:22:56 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:31:33 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/4/2016 12:37:20 PM, Davery79 wrote:
1. How can innocent people be tricked into incriminating themselves? That means they are not innocent people.

A prosecutor can ask leading questions to get the answer they want. If they think you're guilty, they'll hammer you over and over until you misspeak.

They do that anyway. Misspeak? You could accidentally say that you did it, if you didn't?

You can certainly imply it.

2. If they commit perjury, hopefully something during the investigation regarding what they said will come to light after further research, but at least the investigators have a little something to go off of regarding what went wrong and why they are investigating in the first place. If they plead the fifth, than they are just admitting that they have done something wrong, or may be hiding something to protect someone else. This makes it much harder to continue an investigation.

Not the point. If a man knows he'll do life for murder, you cannot reasonably expect him to confess to the killing. Of course he'll lie, so why put him in that position in the first place? It just makes things simpler.
I was specifically referring to potential witnesses, not the person on trial.

Might as well charge every single person pleading innocent, that is found guilty with perjury in addition to the sentence they receive. I know there are plea deals offered for admission before hand, but the state/feds should tack on another 5 years to whatever sentence they got for lying under oath.

No.

First, pleading "not guilty" is an insistence that the prosecution prove your guilt, not a claim to innocence (innocence is merely the presumption).

Second, perjury means you knowingly and willingly lied to the court about facts - i.e. lying about how much tax you've paid is perjury, but lying about whether you love your mother is not. It must also be proved that you lied, not just that the court didn't believe you (as with a guilty verdict).

Slapping a perjury conviction onto every convict violates their right to due process and a fair trial.

I understand that it is there to protect us from our own stupidity, but it shouldn't be abused in a way that can hinder investigations into a certain matters, especially when it comes to a corrupt administration or questionable goings on in a Government institution created to serve the people.

Hillary Clinton has as much right to plead her innocence as the rest of us, even if she is corrupt. Don't begrudge people their rights just because you don't like them, or else the same might happen to you.

Not begrudging on her rights, but from what I understand, she was not treated the same as you or I. They didn't even record her under oath testimony with the FBI, it sounded like it was more of a tea party, or it could have been a threat..... "If I become President, say goodbye to your job Comey"... If it were anyone else, it would have been treated by the book.

So what? That just shows the FBI is in her pocket, not that the 5th amendment is wrong.
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:49:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 9:38:29 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/4/2016 9:22:56 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 8:31:33 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/4/2016 12:37:20 PM, Davery79 wrote:
1. How can innocent people be tricked into incriminating themselves? That means they are not innocent people.

A prosecutor can ask leading questions to get the answer they want. If they think you're guilty, they'll hammer you over and over until you misspeak.

They do that anyway. Misspeak? You could accidentally say that you did it, if you didn't?

You can certainly imply it.

2. If they commit perjury, hopefully something during the investigation regarding what they said will come to light after further research, but at least the investigators have a little something to go off of regarding what went wrong and why they are investigating in the first place. If they plead the fifth, than they are just admitting that they have done something wrong, or may be hiding something to protect someone else. This makes it much harder to continue an investigation.

Not the point. If a man knows he'll do life for murder, you cannot reasonably expect him to confess to the killing. Of course he'll lie, so why put him in that position in the first place? It just makes things simpler.
I was specifically referring to potential witnesses, not the person on trial.

Might as well charge every single person pleading innocent, that is found guilty with perjury in addition to the sentence they receive. I know there are plea deals offered for admission before hand, but the state/feds should tack on another 5 years to whatever sentence they got for lying under oath.

No.

First, pleading "not guilty" is an insistence that the prosecution prove your guilt, not a claim to innocence (innocence is merely the presumption).

Second, perjury means you knowingly and willingly lied to the court about facts - i.e. lying about how much tax you've paid is perjury, but lying about whether you love your mother is not. It must also be proved that you lied, not just that the court didn't believe you (as with a guilty verdict).

When would whether you love your mother or not come into a court of law? That is a feeling and feelings are subjective, not fact, and cannot be proven or discredited. Someone might be on trial for killing their mother, where that subjective feeling may come into play to help or hurt their case, but that is it. And if someone did kill their mother, but plead innocent, saying that they did not, then the jury deliberates and finds them guilty, it has then been proven that they lied about not killing their mom under oath. That would be a fact, at least according to the justice system that is going to put that person away for 25 to life.

Slapping a perjury conviction onto every convict violates their right to due process and a fair trial.
A perjury conviction would only be given to the people that plead innocent who were found to be guilty. If we can't slap on a perjury charge, then we are merely saying, hey we aren't really that sure if the person was lying or not, yet we are going to put them in jail anyway.
All would still have due process and a fair trial... and not every convict pleads not guilty, so not everyone would be subject to this. Especially in a case where they are trying to assess the degree of crime committed.

I understand that it is there to protect us from our own stupidity, but it shouldn't be abused in a way that can hinder investigations into a certain matters, especially when it comes to a corrupt administration or questionable goings on in a Government institution created to serve the people.

Hillary Clinton has as much right to plead her innocence as the rest of us, even if she is corrupt. Don't begrudge people their rights just because you don't like them, or else the same might happen to you.

Not begrudging on her rights, but from what I understand, she was not treated the same as you or I. They didn't even record her under oath testimony with the FBI, it sounded like it was more of a tea party, or it could have been a threat..... "If I become President, say goodbye to your job Comey"... If it were anyone else, it would have been treated by the book.

So what? That just shows the FBI is in her pocket, not that the 5th amendment is wrong.
You said she has as much right to plead her innocence as anyone, and yes she does, but that is why it is hard to get the big fish, because that is what the bigger fish are, the ones most likely to have people in their pocket. I am not saying that the 5th Amendment is wrong, I just think it needs some tweaking.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 1:36:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Slapping a perjury conviction onto every convict violates their right to due process and a fair trial.
A perjury conviction would only be given to the people that plead innocent who were found to be guilty. If we can't slap on a perjury charge, then we are merely saying, hey we aren't really that sure if the person was lying or not, yet we are going to put them in jail anyway.

Lying about what? That they wanted to see what the state had as evidence for their day in court?

All would still have due process and a fair trial... and not every convict pleads not guilty, so not everyone would be subject to this. Especially in a case where they are trying to assess the degree of crime committed.

This only works if you took the stand, and actually lied about something you were questioned with. Pleading not guilty is exactly that, a plea, not a statement of fact. It is the continuation of the idea that the state must prove your guilt rather than assert it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 1:50:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 1:36:07 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Slapping a perjury conviction onto every convict violates their right to due process and a fair trial.
A perjury conviction would only be given to the people that plead innocent who were found to be guilty. If we can't slap on a perjury charge, then we are merely saying, hey we aren't really that sure if the person was lying or not, yet we are going to put them in jail anyway.

Lying about what? That they wanted to see what the state had as evidence for their day in court?

All would still have due process and a fair trial... and not every convict pleads not guilty, so not everyone would be subject to this. Especially in a case where they are trying to assess the degree of crime committed.

This only works if you took the stand, and actually lied about something you were questioned with. Pleading not guilty is exactly that, a plea, not a statement of fact. It is the continuation of the idea that the state must prove your guilt rather than assert it.

You are correct, and thank you for clarifying. There are times that the defendant does not take the stand due to councils advice, or if they are never called. This would only apply to the ones that do. So if they do, and deny the charges against them, and are clearly asked if they committed the crime, are they charged with perjury if convicted?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 2:04:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 1:50:35 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:36:07 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Slapping a perjury conviction onto every convict violates their right to due process and a fair trial.
A perjury conviction would only be given to the people that plead innocent who were found to be guilty. If we can't slap on a perjury charge, then we are merely saying, hey we aren't really that sure if the person was lying or not, yet we are going to put them in jail anyway.

Lying about what? That they wanted to see what the state had as evidence for their day in court?

All would still have due process and a fair trial... and not every convict pleads not guilty, so not everyone would be subject to this. Especially in a case where they are trying to assess the degree of crime committed.

This only works if you took the stand, and actually lied about something you were questioned with. Pleading not guilty is exactly that, a plea, not a statement of fact. It is the continuation of the idea that the state must prove your guilt rather than assert it.

You are correct, and thank you for clarifying. There are times that the defendant does not take the stand due to councils advice, or if they are never called. This would only apply to the ones that do. So if they do, and deny the charges against them, and are clearly asked if they committed the crime, are they charged with perjury if convicted?

Should what they related to while on the stand be in contradiction to other testimony or (preferably) objective evidence, it would stand to reason that yes, they be tried for perjury.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 2:58:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 2:04:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:50:35 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:36:07 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Slapping a perjury conviction onto every convict violates their right to due process and a fair trial.
A perjury conviction would only be given to the people that plead innocent who were found to be guilty. If we can't slap on a perjury charge, then we are merely saying, hey we aren't really that sure if the person was lying or not, yet we are going to put them in jail anyway.

Lying about what? That they wanted to see what the state had as evidence for their day in court?

All would still have due process and a fair trial... and not every convict pleads not guilty, so not everyone would be subject to this. Especially in a case where they are trying to assess the degree of crime committed.

This only works if you took the stand, and actually lied about something you were questioned with. Pleading not guilty is exactly that, a plea, not a statement of fact. It is the continuation of the idea that the state must prove your guilt rather than assert it.

You are correct, and thank you for clarifying. There are times that the defendant does not take the stand due to councils advice, or if they are never called. This would only apply to the ones that do. So if they do, and deny the charges against them, and are clearly asked if they committed the crime, are they charged with perjury if convicted?


Should what they related to while on the stand be in contradiction to other testimony or (preferably) objective evidence, it would stand to reason that yes, they be tried for perjury.

I've never heard of them adding a perjury charge after the fact. But then again, maybe they do, it just goes unnoticed. Funny thing, I just opened my mail and got summoned for Jury Duty. Serves me right to post this. What are the odds?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 3:04:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 2:58:50 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:04:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:50:35 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:36:07 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Slapping a perjury conviction onto every convict violates their right to due process and a fair trial.
A perjury conviction would only be given to the people that plead innocent who were found to be guilty. If we can't slap on a perjury charge, then we are merely saying, hey we aren't really that sure if the person was lying or not, yet we are going to put them in jail anyway.

Lying about what? That they wanted to see what the state had as evidence for their day in court?

All would still have due process and a fair trial... and not every convict pleads not guilty, so not everyone would be subject to this. Especially in a case where they are trying to assess the degree of crime committed.

This only works if you took the stand, and actually lied about something you were questioned with. Pleading not guilty is exactly that, a plea, not a statement of fact. It is the continuation of the idea that the state must prove your guilt rather than assert it.

You are correct, and thank you for clarifying. There are times that the defendant does not take the stand due to councils advice, or if they are never called. This would only apply to the ones that do. So if they do, and deny the charges against them, and are clearly asked if they committed the crime, are they charged with perjury if convicted?


Should what they related to while on the stand be in contradiction to other testimony or (preferably) objective evidence, it would stand to reason that yes, they be tried for perjury.

I've never heard of them adding a perjury charge after the fact. But then again, maybe they do, it just goes unnoticed. Funny thing, I just opened my mail and got summoned for Jury Duty. Serves me right to post this. What are the odds?

Whether or not the additional charge is worth it would probably be the defining factor.

Dude gets tossed in the slammer for 35 years on a murder charge with no possibility of parole, it seems a little silly to add on a 5 year parole charge after the fact, it would just be spinning your wheels. It would require another trial, another jury, another prosecutor, another defense, judge, etc etc.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Davery79
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 3:14:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 3:04:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:58:50 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 2:04:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:50:35 PM, Davery79 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:36:07 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Slapping a perjury conviction onto every convict violates their right to due process and a fair trial.
A perjury conviction would only be given to the people that plead innocent who were found to be guilty. If we can't slap on a perjury charge, then we are merely saying, hey we aren't really that sure if the person was lying or not, yet we are going to put them in jail anyway.

Lying about what? That they wanted to see what the state had as evidence for their day in court?

All would still have due process and a fair trial... and not every convict pleads not guilty, so not everyone would be subject to this. Especially in a case where they are trying to assess the degree of crime committed.

This only works if you took the stand, and actually lied about something you were questioned with. Pleading not guilty is exactly that, a plea, not a statement of fact. It is the continuation of the idea that the state must prove your guilt rather than assert it.

You are correct, and thank you for clarifying. There are times that the defendant does not take the stand due to councils advice, or if they are never called. This would only apply to the ones that do. So if they do, and deny the charges against them, and are clearly asked if they committed the crime, are they charged with perjury if convicted?


Should what they related to while on the stand be in contradiction to other testimony or (preferably) objective evidence, it would stand to reason that yes, they be tried for perjury.

I've never heard of them adding a perjury charge after the fact. But then again, maybe they do, it just goes unnoticed. Funny thing, I just opened my mail and got summoned for Jury Duty. Serves me right to post this. What are the odds?

Whether or not the additional charge is worth it would probably be the defining factor.

Dude gets tossed in the slammer for 35 years on a murder charge with no possibility of parole, it seems a little silly to add on a 5 year parole charge after the fact, it would just be spinning your wheels. It would require another trial, another jury, another prosecutor, another defense, judge, etc etc.

So it would have to be whole other trial? I've wondered about that before, why during sentencing they spend so much time trying to decide whether or not someone should serve 4 or 5 life sentences, what is the difference. That seems like a waste of time too.
But I guess this pretty much closes the matter, thanks for joining in my first post. I did realize a few things.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 3:42:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

It's critical component of our justice system. If you are frustrated by it, think about the ramifications of not having this cornerstone.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 4:10:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 3:42:24 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/30/2016 4:08:31 PM, Davery79 wrote:
I have a problem with this clause in the 5th Amendment. I did not used to, but now it is making it impossible to prosecute people that have broken the law, there are no witnesses.

This will happen with every case that involves a large group of people that have been bullied into doing something that they know was wrong to begin with.

"I plead the 5th"

It's critical component of our justice system. If you are frustrated by it, think about the ramifications of not having this cornerstone.

Yes. It would be horrible if people guilty of a crime or wrongdoing "accidentally" incriminated themselves by testifying against themselves...

(Cue crickets)
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...