English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you think stating this you are admitting your crime ?

I reckon it does.

2006-06-12 18:44:06 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Adding the following details from a current case so you can see the context. This is why I think he's admitting guilt by saying he may incriminate himself

A "PERSON of interest" in the cruise ship death of Dianne Brimble feared he might incriminate himself, his lawyer said today

2006-06-12 19:20:19 · update #1

10 answers

YES YOUR GUILTY AS CHARGED! ! ! !! lol

2006-06-12 18:48:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

1

2016-06-13 04:42:40 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

The 5th Amendment covers many issues on top of self incrimination. The amendment says (with some exceptions) that a person must be indicted by a Grand Jury prior to being held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime. It also says that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And finally, private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. These are all very important protections.

Also, the protection from self-incrimination forces prosecutors to actually build a case rather than go on "fishing expeditions". Let's say the prosecution gets someone on the stand they suspect was doing something illegal on a particular night, but don't know what. Currently, they need evidence to link that person to a specific crime. In a "fifthless" world, they could just ask a series of questions, forcing the person into the perjury/confession dilemma. Furthermore, there are a number of activities that, while not illegal, could still be embarrassing to reveal in open court, and a zealous prosecutor with an axe to grind could use the right to interrogate a witness on the stand to force such admissions.

2006-06-12 19:01:19 · answer #3 · answered by soplaw2001 5 · 0 0

it doesn't always mean your guilty, but it sure will make you look guilty.

Some times a lawer will ask a question that really doesn't have any connection to the case. They will ask these questions to make you look bad or for you to say, "I refuse to answer". Example: During a murder case they found out the suspected murderur sleeps around constantly, but his sleeping around has no relavence on the case, they just want to make him look like he doesn't have good morals by showing he's a player.

Another example is when they get a gay or a swinger on stand; trust me it will get out there.

Another reason they might use the no answer is to protect somebody from something. Example a man could say he will not say where he was on a certain night because he was cheating on his wife or he was talking to an adoption agency, because he wanted to give up his children.

Like I said in the beginning using that could mean so many things, but it will make you look guilty.

added: to anyone who says using it is good they are wrong. We are all men and women, we can not read minds to find out why you use it, so we assume what we assume. Remember both the Judge and Jury are humans, so who ever is the one that decides guilt or innocense will assume (generally the worst). Also using it gives them something to remember (they will always think you are hiding something, no matter how the rest of your testamonial goes).

2006-06-12 19:00:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

you're not required to say anything incriminating about yourself but doing so gives some suspicious minds reason to believe you are guilty and hiding it. others may think that you have a blood sucking gorilla (lawyer) bothering you and there's no sane defense against them -- except maybe to tie the lawyer up in duct tape and ....
.... anyhow outside of legal court is another matter: for instance if someone should confront another about a vicious rumor and they remain silent or refuse to give their source than it is assumed that they originated the rumor.

2006-06-12 19:01:44 · answer #5 · answered by allzeros 2 · 0 0

it is thee 5th amendment a law in the constitution .
which is to safeguard ones democratic right s if asked a question that would put you on the wrong side of the law ,

and yes it would seem so that you are admitting guilt with out compromising your self .
they still have to prove that you are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

2006-06-12 18:51:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

not legally. it's pleading the 5th amendment. there are some times when you can't use it, but for the most part it's all good.

2006-06-12 18:49:17 · answer #7 · answered by donlockwood36 4 · 0 0

Not necessarily.Perhaps the person testifying is protecting not only themselves but someone else.

2006-06-12 18:49:53 · answer #8 · answered by kalasmom3 3 · 0 0

I plead the 5th, lol, does anybody remembers the Chappelle show? one, two, three, four, "FIF", lol

2006-06-12 18:50:26 · answer #9 · answered by Rodrigue 2 · 0 0

NO

2006-06-12 18:47:40 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers