It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate. So once you sign that immunity document,…
> you can be __forced__ to talk How, if you have immunity?
Not talking would be a future crime that immunity would not cover.
I don't understand. Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour. That is an admission, and admission is the whole reason immunity is granted. Edit: the point being that the limit on their sentence is contingent on not pleading the 5th.
> Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour. You are mistaken. Lets say "Alice" is the boss you're after, and Bob is a close associate of Alice, and Bob _MIGHT_ have committed a crime. Nobody knows if Bob is actually a criminal (and indeed, Bob is in that weird grey-zone of the law, skirting legal issues and just barely being legal). You give Bob immunity so that he's more comfortable in testifying in co…
But the context here aren't cases where the individuals in question are in a gray area, they're individuals that definitely were accessories to/covered up or participated in criminal activity but then get immunity in order to get the big fish. This is exactly what Huett was describing in the opening paragraphs of this article.