We can only hope that if this suspect is guilty, they find evidence that can be obtained without violating his rights ... and of course if he's innocent, I hope he avoids the stigma being a suspect might bring.
You can be compelled to testify under oath for many reasons none of which involve doing anything wrong. When you testify under oath, you must answer the questions asked truthfully or face unlimited jail-time for contempt.
The fifth amendment is the only form of protection you have from being called to testify and being grilled about any random topic. It's a balance to the otherwise tremendous power that a court has.
The prosecution must be able to make their case without the defendants assistance. This is a fundamental aspect of our legal system.
I think precedent leaned this way precisely because people understood that otherwise, guilty people would definitely walk. And they couldn't have that, even if it meant that the spirit of the 5th amendment was violated.
That's in my head, despite the fact that I am well aware that he could be taking a moral stand, or he could have stuff on those drives which he doesn't want to be seen for reasons completely unrelated to child pornography (maybe photos of his mistress which his wife doesn't know about, maybe profit spreadsheets from his drug-dealing... etc.)
So if he is innocent, I imagine the stigma will be there regardless, assuming people hear about the case at least.
No, that's the responsibility of prosecutors. Trial courts are 'finders of fact,' whether or not those facts suit the prosecution.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Regardless, we could have shortened this thread considerably if you'd just said "eh, whaddya gonna do?" up front.
I said 'a lot of people are authoritarians,' not that it was inherent. It varies from country to country, eg I think Swedes are somewhat less authoritarian than Americans in the aggregate.