this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
-7 points (36.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26276 readers
1498 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Do you feel that the 4th amendment should protect them? Or perhaps a new amendment should be written to protect them and abolish power of subpoena?

I'm slightly biased as I ask this. I feel that the mind is "sacred" in a sense, that it should be considered a fundamental human right for an individual to be able to preserve privacy over their internally held thoughts and memories, and that the ability of the court to force an individual to speak or disclose part of their mind is a wild overreach of power and an affront to the personal liberty of the innocent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Let's be very clear: a witness refusing to testify is a rare occasion. Why? Witnesses usually only get called if a party thinks they're worth the hassle. So things like this are usually avoided. Also there's only a few reasons to refuse to testify:

  • self incrimination (5th amendment), which is protected by law and takes priority
  • distrust for the legal process / the police

Basically the only way you can get in trouble is if you distrust the legal process / the police, you can not raise 5th amendment issues or there is an immunity deal that applies.

Currently you are only able to issue contempt charges, and that's about it, and that stuff is also very much limited considering relevant case law.

I think it's like a day to a month in jail.

Let's also make clear that there is currently a court case going on against young thug, where basically the whole law community is mad at the previous judge (which has been overruled by the supreme Court in an emergency motion; the equivalent to a royal "you fucked up"), and there's still an endless list of issues. A lot of issues surround a witness who has been lying his ass off and said as much in open court, but who has been part of highly improper ex parte communications and other shenanigans which basically aimed at intimidating him into testifying against young thug.

I bring this up because although there's a lot of publicity, this is not how it usually works, and this is a bad reference, so I don't want people to draw from this case.

Back to your question, the penalty, which I again think is about a day to a month in prison. I think it's a bad thing that you can throw people in jail for this shit, but I also think it's the best thing there is right now. Court does not have the resources nor the time to properly deal with hostile witnesses, and that means they are limited in what they can do.

Also let's point out again that in any case, such witnesses only exist, when the moving party has made a huge mistake or something slipped through the cracks.

TL;DR I think it's not a great penalty but it's the best we have. Also there's truckloads of context needed to have a very productive debate on this.

Disclaimer: specific cases get weird, because circumstances and jurisdictions are weird, so "it depends" is still the only viable answer to most things, and IANAL.