Michigan Supreme Court: Law enforcement now immune to perjury

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Michigan Supreme Court: Law enforcement now immune to perjury

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

is this a case of politicians taking care of their buddies or them just placating the populaces deification of violent authority its hard to tell with america

# ¿ Jun 26, 2016 01:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 19:53

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

Is it bizarre though? To me it seems clear that the law intends to not only remove all incentives to snitch but to protect people who actively cover for their buddies.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2016 02:02

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

Helsing posted:

Well I'm doing that thing where you critique a system by comparing it to it's own stated ideals but sure, it's not actually surprising to learn that the government tries to discourage whistle blowers.

Does it work? I mean the first part, the second part seems to work really well.

Mr. Horyd posted:

After Garrity v. New Jersey in 1967 most internal investigations advise their officers of their right to silence, but are still allowed to take said silence into consideration.

"You are being asked to provide information as part of an internal and/or administrative investigation. This is a voluntary interview and you do not have to answer questions if your answers would tend to implicate you in a crime. No disciplinary action will be taken against you solely for refusing to answer questions. However, the evidentiary value of your silence may be considered in administrative proceedings as part of the facts surrounding your case. Any statement you do choose to provide may be used as evidence in criminal and/or administrative proceedings."

Does this mean anything except they don't have to forget about it?

Is the fifth amendment supposed to protect worker rights anyway?

# ¿ Jun 26, 2016 05:54

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

Mr. Horyd posted:

Again, not a legal scholar, but I see this as a dividing line where your refusal to answer question from a non-government entity (such as a private employer) does not protect your job. By definition, law enforcement officers are working for a government entity with subpoena powers, and cannot be questioned by their boss without it automatically being under the umbrella of Fifth Amendment.

I'm not even American I'm just curious about the philosophy behind the laws.

Aren't you always automatically under the umbrella of the fifth amendment? If your boss asks you something you can be silent, or plead the fifth or whatever. There isn't much point though since he doesn't have the unique authority to take your property or lock you in his basement or execute you. It doesn't disallow him from preventing you from working on his property or wielding his authority. Why does the government have less rights in this regard?

Mercrom fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jun 26, 2016

# ¿ Jun 26, 2016 17:28

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

Rent-A-Cop posted:

No. The government (or its agents) can not compel you to testify against yourself. Anyone who isn't, can. If you work for McDonalds they can compel you all day every day to testify against yourself. They can restrict the manner and content of your speech, they could (and in the distopian future, will) quarter troops in your house. The Constitution does not apply to them.

The Constitution applies to the government. It exists to limit the powers of the government.

Yeah McDonalds can compel you to testify against yourself by continuing to pay you a salary if you do. The government can compel you to confess by offering you a reduced prison sentence.

It seems to me it only protects against taking away rights that does not originally belong to the person taking them away. I really don't like either example but they make sense. McDonalds has a right to fire you at any time and they give up that right in exchange for a testimony. The government has a right to execute you if they can prove you committed a crime and they give up that right in exchange for a confession.

And if McDonalds had the right to imprison you or quarter troops in your house (not their house that you live in), it would mean the government had given some of it's unique authority over to McDonalds, effectively making them an extension of the government and beholden to the constitution.

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

Because it's the government, the whole point of the constitution is to give the government less rights to limit things like free speech than a private interest can. Many government workers are more protected in this regard, actually, in the sense that it's much harder to fire a government worker for what they said on facebook than a private employer.

Is that the point of the constitution? Or is the point of the constitution to give the government less rights to limit things like free speech using their unique authority to commit violence and take property? I'm honestly asking.

And is the second part a good thing? Rather than the first amendment having any part of this, wouldn't it be better to have a law that protects all workers?

# ¿ Jun 26, 2016 18:48

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

Rent-A-Cop posted:

The government doesn't have rights. It has powers.

The Constitution exists as a check on those powers. It is, at the most basic level, a list of things the government can't legally do.

You have the power to buy a gun and shoot your neighbor. The US government has the power to carpet bomb it's constituents with nuclear weapons. But let's not argue semantics.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2016 02:23

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Words have meanings. In this case they have very specific meanings that have been worked out over 200+ years of jurisprudence.

If you want to discuss the law you're going to need to concede that words have a legal definition.

Alright so powers are the government's legal oughts in the same way rights are a person's (and corporation's) legal oughts.

I'm sorry I didn't notice you were trying to answer my question before about the point of the constitution. Yes I do get that the constitution explicitly prohibits the government from legally doing things. It is those things that it explicitly prohibits I am asking about.

The first amendment seems way too broad. It begins with "Congress shall make no law..." that in various ways prohibit freedom of speech. All the laws protecting property indirectly prohibit freedom of speech. Why interpret this to only limit the powers of government institutions?

Reading the fifth amendment I see that it actually just uses the word "compel" which clears things up. It is broad but I assume means threatening to do harm not offering incentives. The government has the power to offer you the incentive of a plea bargain. A judge does not have the power to give you the death penalty because you refused a plea bargain, but they certainly have the ~~power~~ ability to do so. The government similarly does not have the power to renege on an employment contract just because you plead the fifth.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2016 21:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 19:53

Mercrom: Jul 17, 2009

Rent-A-Cop posted:

How do you figure?

Because the government is the one actually enforcing the threats your employer makes against you. Because they are the ones forcing you to accept the troops the landlord has stationed in your house. And because it means that if someone owns all the newspapers, TV stations, the entire internet and all capital necessary to construct these things, the government is legally obligated to restrict other people from using these things freely.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Because there is no other way to interpret it. The Constitution simply doesn't apply to non-government entities. poo poo, until fairly recently it didn't even apply to states, and parts of it still (debatably) don't.

But far as I can interpret it the first amendment only applies to congress. How can it limit other parts of government except indirectly through law making? And since congress also makes laws for the people, why don't those laws face the same restrictions?

I'm sorry this is getting way off topic but I don't think anyone not even the judges enforcing it believes the Michigan law isn't stupid as hell.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2016 00:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Michigan Supreme Court: Law enforcement now immune to perjury