Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
After reading the Gonzalez thread, I find myself questioning the right to not testify against one's self as a function of justice. If someone like Gonzalez is guilty, but he is the only one with the pertinent information about proving the guilt, is it in the interest of justice to allow him to be free just because there isn't corroboration? In general, would justice be served?
I honestly don't know.
|
I think it was designed to prevent torture, coercion, or the threat of contempt of court being used to extract false confessions out of you (apparently the Military Commission Act overturned this by allowing hearsay evidence gained through torture to be used against you. Too bad he's not an enemy combatant, then we could torture the info out I guess
).
Perhaps it lets him off the hook here, but as many of the other rights allow the occational scumbag to get off scotch free, it still saves many others from opression.