71–80 of 202 posts
'We can't help them if we aren't aware of their needs,' Barshinger said."
Honest question: Could a survey to high school students truly help suicidal teens?
The teacher should be in hot water for teaching the 5th amendment incorrectly. From the text of the amendment: "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness , in a way that might incriminate oneself. Relatedly, it excludes self-incriminating statements in certain circumstances from evidence in crimi…
You can invoke the 5th amendment in proceedings that are not currently, but could become, criminal proceedings, on the grounds that your answers may be used against you criminally. For instance, you can refuse to answer questions in a civil case deposition relating to potentially criminal activities. The only way to remove the right against self-incrimination is to grant immunity, which for drug-related offenses means, to be safe, both state and federal government would have to agree.
What's even more sad is that a brief word from a civics teacher got a significant number of students to think twice about taking the survey. Why didn't the students' parents talk to their own kids about the survey? It's a parent's responsibility, as much as it is a civics teacher's responsibility, to discuss civics issues like this with their children. Most of the parents would probably do well to audit Mr. Dryden's class.
The teacher should be in hot water for teaching the 5th amendment incorrectly. From the text of the amendment: "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness , in a way that might incriminate oneself. Relatedly, it excludes self-incriminating statements in certain circumstances from evidence in crimi…
And because admission of drug use could be used in a criminal case against the student, it applies, does it not? You can invoke the 5th amendment in proceedings that are not currently, but could become, criminal proceedings, on the grounds that your answers may be used against you criminally. For instance, you can refuse to answer questions in a civil case deposition relating to potentially criminal activities. The o…
Maybe the parents weren't told that the survey was asking about potentially illegal behavior and wasn't anonymous.
Maybe the survey's true nature was buried in ambiguous terms or lengthy legalese.
Maybe the survey was opt-out instead of opt-in, and most people took the path of least resistance and didn't bother to do anything with it (if their kids even remembered to give them information that was sent home).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which was the whole point the teacher was making - you have a right to not incriminate yourself (by giving a false answer or not answering), even when asked by authority figures (judges, police, teachers) to do so. A lot of people feel that they must fill in every value of every form "or else". While really, if you value your privacy you should ask if every value is really required.
You don't actually have the right to provide false answers in many situations and doing so could actually be a crime.
And of course, it's very easy to lie accidentally: You may honestly be confused, mis-remember, make a mistake, or tell them a true fact that doesn't fit with incorrect information they obtained from another source. Especially under the stress of being suspected, investigated, arrested, etc.
Rule one of dealing with the police: Don't help them under any circumstances. Shut up and lawyer up immediately.
For more information, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a while, this included the text of some laws! My understanding is that got overturned, though (thank goodness).
It was not the text of some laws. It was engineering standards incorporated into certain building codes. The laws were like: "buildings shall follow ASME x.y.z" (to use a software analogy, it would be like requiring something to conform to POSIX, a standard the text of which is not freely published).
Here is a freely published copy of the POSIX standard:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
Regarding the "text of some laws", there was actually a story on HN about the city of the District of Columbia asserting copyright to their laws and making it only available via a private company:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/ignorance-of...
The teacher should be in hot water for teaching the 5th amendment incorrectly. From the text of the amendment: "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness , in a way that might incriminate oneself. Relatedly, it excludes self-incriminating statements in certain circumstances from evidence in crimi…
The school is also trying to teach students a valuable civics lesson: your rights are minimal and the principle function of the state is the furtherance of the careers of the bureaucrats who compose the state. Anything that inconveniences them will be met with all the power they can muster.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I don't necessarily think they were right on everything, but they were right on this. You really don't want to live in a state where Treason is an accusation thrown around lightly.
The teacher should be in hot water for teaching the 5th amendment incorrectly. From the text of the amendment: "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." The 5th amendment gives people the right to refuse to testify, as a witness , in a way that might incriminate oneself. Relatedly, it excludes self-incriminating statements in certain circumstances from evidence in crimi…
Based on your literal interpretation, the 5th amendment would only apply to the male gender, no?
So the amendment is necessary not because of the general case (in any circumstances, it is obvious that nobody has the right to expect a self-incriminating answer to a question) but because of the specific case of a witness.
However, nowadays, people seem to need to be recalled that they are not expected to speak against themselves anywhere. Except if they willingly want to do so.
"Did you insult your classmate?" is usually not a legal proceeding. However, answering it one way or the other will help you or not. You do not need to answer that question. But quoting the Fifth for not doing so is ridiculuous: it is way before the Fifth amendment.
Off-topic, but how does it work that when I load that site I get an advertisement for The Lorax ( http://i.imgur.com/y6eke4T.jpg ), a character with whom John Dryden happens to share several key features? I understand showing ads by keyword (the alcohol ad as alcohol is mentioned in the article several times...) but facial similarity based advertising?! I'm speechless.