physically forcing someone to incriminate themselves is self incrimination. Why would it not be self-incrimination once they are forced? Your statement makes zero sense.
The whole point of laws regarding self incrimination is not to stop people from being electively able to incriminate themselves, but to stop the government from being able to force them to incriminate themselves.
Almost everyone but you is familiar with self-incrimination as the word(s) used in modern English as a concept that includes things like testifying against yourself whether you were physically forced to to or not.
------------
RE to below: (due to timeout)
>Again, the government cannot force people to incriminate themselves.
force : coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
>It can threaten people in order to convince them to incriminate themselves,
You literally used an example of force.
In classic HN autistic pedantry, if someone puts a gun to my head and demands my wallet and I hand it over -- well your honor they were never forced to do it! You see they were just threatened to be convinced to hand the wallet over!
--------------
>I really have to bail, because this is stupid. The government can take your wallet. You are not allowed to keep your wallet because the things inside it can incriminate you. By your own tortured reasoning, self-incrimination would include someone else physically holding you down and taking your wallet.
I claimed it (someone compelling you to hand over your wallet) was an example of force, not an example of self-incrimination. Keep your thoughts straight. At least we finally figured out you have no idea what force means, and that was the root of your misunderstandings. For the record, wallet is not part of your 'self' but your finger is generally understood to be. Dead men aren't prosecuted in the US so it's moot to debate handing over a dead man's finger for his own criminal case.
>There's no timeout. It takes a little while for a reply link to appear on the main page, but if you click directly through to the comment, you can reply.
There is a timeout on my account, I'm limited to ~5 posts per 3 hours.
There's no timeout. It takes a little while for a reply link to appear on the main page, but if you click directly through to the comment, you can reply.
> In classic HN autistic pedantry, if someone puts a gun to my head and demands my wallet and I hand it over -- well your honor they were never forced to do it! You see they were just threatened to be convinced to hand the wallet over!
I'm going to take a last run at explaining this to you. I'm not telling you that the government cannot force you to do things. I'm telling you that the government cannot force you to testify against yourself, because that's how justice once worked: you chose somebody you thought did something, then tortured them until they admitted it. This is the beginning and the end of self-incrimination. It doesn't give you the ability to refuse to give your photograph, it doesn't give you the ability to refuse fingerprint or DNA collection. It, in fact, doesn't give you any ability. It restrains the ability of the government to punish you for not testifying against yourself.
> In classic HN autistic pedantry, if someone puts a gun to my head and demands my wallet and I hand it over -- well your honor they were never forced to do it!
I really have to bail, because this is stupid. The government can take your wallet. You are not allowed to keep your wallet because the things inside it can incriminate you. By your own tortured reasoning, self-incrimination would include someone else physically holding you down and taking your wallet.
Nothing can be self-incrimination that doesn't require you to be alive to participate in. Any inability to understand this is willful, and you're only hurting yourself.
> physically forcing someone to incriminate themselves is self incrimination.
You can't physically force someone to testify. It's not a thing that is possible, unless you kill them and attach electrodes to the muscles of their mouth, throat, and diaphragm. The testimony that results from that method will not be convincing.
> The whole point of laws regarding self incrimination is not to stop people from being electively able to incriminate themselves, but to stop the government from being able to force them to incriminate themselves.
Again, the government cannot force people to incriminate themselves. It can threaten people in order to convince them to incriminate themselves, it can punish people if they refuse to incriminate themselves, but it can't force people to incriminate themselves. It can put their finger on a phone. You can put their finger on a phone, if you're bigger than them, or they are asleep.
The point of laws about self-incrimination is to declare that refusal to self-incriminate cannot be punished.
The whole point of laws regarding self incrimination is not to stop people from being electively able to incriminate themselves, but to stop the government from being able to force them to incriminate themselves.
Almost everyone but you is familiar with self-incrimination as the word(s) used in modern English as a concept that includes things like testifying against yourself whether you were physically forced to to or not.
------------
RE to below: (due to timeout)
>Again, the government cannot force people to incriminate themselves.
force : coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
>It can threaten people in order to convince them to incriminate themselves,
You literally used an example of force.
In classic HN autistic pedantry, if someone puts a gun to my head and demands my wallet and I hand it over -- well your honor they were never forced to do it! You see they were just threatened to be convinced to hand the wallet over!
--------------
>I really have to bail, because this is stupid. The government can take your wallet. You are not allowed to keep your wallet because the things inside it can incriminate you. By your own tortured reasoning, self-incrimination would include someone else physically holding you down and taking your wallet.
I claimed it (someone compelling you to hand over your wallet) was an example of force, not an example of self-incrimination. Keep your thoughts straight. At least we finally figured out you have no idea what force means, and that was the root of your misunderstandings. For the record, wallet is not part of your 'self' but your finger is generally understood to be. Dead men aren't prosecuted in the US so it's moot to debate handing over a dead man's finger for his own criminal case.
>There's no timeout. It takes a little while for a reply link to appear on the main page, but if you click directly through to the comment, you can reply.
There is a timeout on my account, I'm limited to ~5 posts per 3 hours.