Slashdot Mirror
Lower Merion School District Update
Mike_EE_U_of_I and jargon82 were among a number of readers who sent an update on the Lower Merion School District webcam spying case (see Related Stories for our discussions of the affair over the last couple of months). The school had originally stated that capturing laptop photos in students' homes had only happened 42 times. It turns out what they meant was that there were 42 instances when they began intensive surveillance on the suspected stolen computers. This consisted of (among other things) transmitting a picture from the laptop's webcam every 15 minutes. This may have gone on for weeks. In total, it appears that there were thousands of photos. One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Anyone can invoke the 5th amendment if they believe that answering the question will incriminate them. It doesn't matter if they are on trial or not. If you were accused of murder, and I saw you do it while I was across the street robbing a convenience store, I might choose to invoke the 5th rather than explain what I was doing while I saw you commit your act.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
just watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Absolutely must see.
she... was making fun of the kids and families
Gee, a public servant with utter contempt for the people she is being paid to serve... what a surprise!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The Fifth Amendment reads "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Not "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to incriminate himself". So no, we don't know that you're guilty of something, only that you've refused to be a witness in your case.
Every single (fair) judge in the country will instruct a jury that did not hear the defendant's testimony that they cannot infer anything from the fact that the defendant did not testify. That's established precedent.
I am officially gone from
Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
I'll undo about 10 points of moderation to comment here.
No. You're free to keep your mouth shut when being interrogated by police or in a courtroom if that information may incriminate you in any crime.
You can still be compelled to testify about another person, under threat of contempt and jail. A good example would be you being ordered by a judge to testify regarding a crime you're aware of, but did not participate in. If you did participate in it though, you could still invoke the 5th amendment and simply tell the judge you believe your testimony may be incriminating.
The right to not incriminate yourself is nearly universal, and for good reason. The original intent was not to allow guilty people to hide behind a legal shield, but to prevent innocent people from being forced to testify against themselves.
In a police state, without the 5th amendment, the police can very easily coerce confessions for crimes people didn't commit. This is one reason why even sometimes a confession isn't an open & shut case. Under some circumstances, the confession is tossed out due to 5th amendment rights. In some cases, something as simple as the interrogator sitting between the door and the suspect has been used, because such can be interpreted as coercion of someone who is otherwise free to leave at any time.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.