Acknowledging how rights are inalienable — rights cannot be stripped from an American unless said American is a convicted criminal, so nobody should lose their 5th since nobody has been convicted.
While going through a judicial proceeding, rights are supposed to be acknowledged and respected, but, these days, the judicial system is a giant messy swamp, so it is easy to misunderstand what is what.
Long story short, Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so losing the 5th is unrealistic.
A judge could threaten a person all a judge wants, but nobody loses their right to stay silent, because where a person is coerced into speaking, a person’s testimony becomes compromised.
Nah, the 5th only applies to Criminal cases, not Civil cases. Defendants in Civil cases have no 5th amendment rights.
Typically though defendants in civil cases use the 5th if it can be claimed they could be in criminal jeopardy. Where they have been pardoned though, that is no longer a defense.
The big question is whether a preemptive pardon is really a thing. It implies that a pardoned individual has absolute immunity, which even the President doesn't have, so how can the President confer something he doesn't have?
It’s always Civil and/or Criminal, but the distinctions between the two worlds shouldn’t ever negate an individual’s inalienable right to remain silent.
However, to elaborate upon your point: say an individual worked under a specific contract, and it was the individual’s duty to manage specified information or a specified inventory or a specific task — that individual could be COMPELLED, by his own contract, to speak upon what should be substantive details, except, that doesn’t mean the individual MUST speak, and if the individual doesn’t speak, the civil matter may escalate into a criminal matter.
Any individual may choose to stay silent and accept the consequences which come their way. Perhaps, it’s not always wise to stay silent, but that doesn’t mean an individual doesn’t have the right to remain silent.
First of all, there is no such thing as 5th A rights. It is a right, period. Yes, you have that right at all times involving government. Civil, or criminal.
It's a good question and that's why it needs to be forced to the Supreme Court's table. Because then we can play that game too, and we are all better gamers than them.
OK that makes more sense to me. I've seen this statement that they lose their 5th when pardoned (for those times/topics covered by the pardon), and I thought it was odd, but I've seen it said/written over and over in multiple venues. Ty for your post.
That’s a misunderstanding.
Acknowledging how rights are inalienable — rights cannot be stripped from an American unless said American is a convicted criminal, so nobody should lose their 5th since nobody has been convicted.
While going through a judicial proceeding, rights are supposed to be acknowledged and respected, but, these days, the judicial system is a giant messy swamp, so it is easy to misunderstand what is what.
Long story short, Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so losing the 5th is unrealistic.
A judge could threaten a person all a judge wants, but nobody loses their right to stay silent, because where a person is coerced into speaking, a person’s testimony becomes compromised.
Nah, the 5th only applies to Criminal cases, not Civil cases. Defendants in Civil cases have no 5th amendment rights.
Typically though defendants in civil cases use the 5th if it can be claimed they could be in criminal jeopardy. Where they have been pardoned though, that is no longer a defense.
The big question is whether a preemptive pardon is really a thing. It implies that a pardoned individual has absolute immunity, which even the President doesn't have, so how can the President confer something he doesn't have?
It’s always Civil and/or Criminal, but the distinctions between the two worlds shouldn’t ever negate an individual’s inalienable right to remain silent.
However, to elaborate upon your point: say an individual worked under a specific contract, and it was the individual’s duty to manage specified information or a specified inventory or a specific task — that individual could be COMPELLED, by his own contract, to speak upon what should be substantive details, except, that doesn’t mean the individual MUST speak, and if the individual doesn’t speak, the civil matter may escalate into a criminal matter.
Any individual may choose to stay silent and accept the consequences which come their way. Perhaps, it’s not always wise to stay silent, but that doesn’t mean an individual doesn’t have the right to remain silent.
First of all, there is no such thing as 5th A rights. It is a right, period. Yes, you have that right at all times involving government. Civil, or criminal.
It's a good question and that's why it needs to be forced to the Supreme Court's table. Because then we can play that game too, and we are all better gamers than them.
OK that makes more sense to me. I've seen this statement that they lose their 5th when pardoned (for those times/topics covered by the pardon), and I thought it was odd, but I've seen it said/written over and over in multiple venues. Ty for your post.