Review: right against self-incrimination

Gaspo

Gaspo

TNPer
Clause 6 of the Bill of Rights says:

Bill of Rights:
6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
Click to expand...

This is helpful but there is some ambiguity which Eluvatar & r3nnaissanc3r need disambiguated with regards to the highlighted part.

Suppose that in TNP v Alice, Bob is asked a question relevant to TNP v Alice the answer to which could incriminate Bob.

Firstly, does Bob have a right to decline to answer such a question based on clause six?

Secondly, would refusal to answer such a question constitute evidence against Bob?

The answer to these questions shall determine whether Eluvatar & r3nnaissanc3r will call (a) certain witness(es) as part of their defense strategy. Without such clarity, Eluvatar & r3naissanc3r cannot ethically compel them to testify.
Click to expand...

I suppose we ought to get to work on this. General legal principles hold that the answer to his questions are "Yes" and "No". The whole point of a right against self-incrimination is undermined if utilization of that right constitutes roughly equivalent evidence of guilt, as would have been produced if the question had been answered. The way in which the law is worded suggests that this right would extend to any criminal trial, and covers any nation.

If the prosecution wishes to use such witnesses for its own purposes, or wishes to compel an answer, there's nothing in the current law which bars the Office of the Attorney General from offering Immunity in exchange for testimony. We could note that in an opinion, if we wish, but I'm inclined not to assist the prosecutors too much - it's their job to know how to do their job as best they can.

Tl;dr Yes, you can decline to answer, and no, the fact that you declined cannot be used against you, in any trial, ever. Thoughts?
 
Hileville:
We have a majority now. If Bel doesn't respond soon we can go with that.
Click to expand...
Works for me. I say we give it til Friday, and if we get nothing, we can draft opinions on this and other matters over the weekend.
 
The Court has two questions before it. First, does the right against self-incrimination apply only to parties in the case at hand, or to all individuals testifying as witnesses? Second, does the refusal to answer on self-incrimination grounds constitute evidence against the individual, which may be used to assert guilt related to the matter at hand?

As to the first question, the wording of the law indicates no limitation on this right against self-incrimination. It may be invoked by any witness or party when questioned, and the refusal to answer may not be circumvented by any legal action in the future. This is a fundamental legal principle, and is essential to ensuring the fairness of the justice system.

The second question is similarly simple. The answer is no. The refusal to answer is simply a refusal to answer, nothing more. If it were usable as evidence of guilt, the entire right against self-incrimination would be undermined and become irrelevant. In order to preserve this right, the refusal to answer cannot be used as evidence of guilty, in the proceeding at hand or in any future proceeding.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Eluvatar on Right against Self Incrimination​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Eluvatar.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant section of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

Article 6 of the Bill of Rights:
6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
Click to expand...
The Court opines the following:

The Court has two questions before it. First, does the right against self-incrimination apply only to parties in the case at hand, or to all individuals testifying as witnesses? Second, does the refusal to answer on self-incrimination grounds constitute evidence against the individual, which may be used to assert guilt related to the matter at hand?

As to the first question, the wording of the law indicates no limitation on this right against self-incrimination. It may be invoked by any witness or party when questioned, and the refusal to answer may not be circumvented by any legal action in the future. This is a fundamental legal principle, and is essential to ensuring the fairness of the justice system.

The second question is similarly simple. The answer is no. The refusal to answer is simply a refusal to answer, nothing more. If it were usable as evidence of guilt, the entire right against self-incrimination would be undermined and become irrelevant. In order to preserve this right, the refusal to answer cannot be used as evidence of guilty, in the proceeding at hand or in any future proceeding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top