Hacker News Reader

Comment by firasd | Hacker News Reader

Something that makes me uncomfortable which is not directly touched upon on this article: in America, being a prosecutor is often a stepping stone to being a politician. Which (among other career imperatives) is an incentive to be a 'showboat' and win notable convictions.

The desire to convict also leads to some decisions that seem very wrong-headed from a common-sense perspective, like prosecuting young people for child porn for taking pictures of themselves, or imprisoning victims of domestic violence for not giving testimony...

View on HN

> prosecuting young people for child porn for taking pictures of themselves

I've read about children and adolescents who were added to that sex offender registry because of minor indiscretions and had their adult lives ruined as a result. I can't imagine what being branded a pedophile and child molester will do to their reputations.

Almost happened to a friend of mine for urinating in an alley way (whilst drunk). There were no children around and he wasn’t showing off. A cop just happened to pull down the alley and his first threat was that of being added to the list.

Are you talking about in the US? I thought we had an amendment that said that while we might be compelled to show up as a witness at court, we can't be compelled to testify if we think it might implicate ourselves?

Nonetheless, there can be other evidence or witnesses

A victim of domestic violence would be fearing retaliation, not self incrimination.

Well just don't mention that part.

If and when the court removes the self-incrimination threat, usually by granting use immunity, you can still be compelled to testify. The privilege only protects against self-incrimination.

All people should fear self incrimination. Prosecutors don't know you, your history, or care. If they suspect they can get a conviction from anyone, they will try, regardless of their role in unrelated cases. One normal healthy human accidental inconsistency in your story can ruin you forever. Accidental self incrimination of the innocent is not to be taken lightly. Always have a lawyer present when talking to a prosecutor.

That's easily standardly solved by immunity grants.

Indeed. In the case of an immunity grant, a judge will compel you to testify or throw you in jail for contempt of court iirc (ianal). But these are all things your lawyer, which you should already have long before you get an immunity grant, will tell you

You don't have to testify against yourselves, but, if given immunity, you have to testify against someone else (barring exceptional circumstances).

This can put crime victims in the legal position of being forced to testify against their accuser, even if they are afraid or do not want to, under threat of contempt of court charges.

Yes I'm talking about victims being jailed for not co-operating as witnesses. Here's an article about it: "Across the country, domestic violence victims who turn to law enforcement for help can be punished if they later decide that a criminal justice response isn’t in their best interest." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trials_and_e...

That's easy for the court to bypass though. Simply provide immunity for charges arising from the testimony.

> I thought we had an amendment that said that while we might be compelled to show up as a witness at court, we can't be compelled to testify if we think it might implicate ourselves?

It only protects you from being compelled to be a witness against yourself; because of indirect use, you can refuse testimony that isn't directly against yourself based on that protection, but only so long as you haven't been granted immunity that protects you against those derivative uses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com