Should it be a crime to plead the fifth on false pretense?

[Leviticus]

The self-discrimination clause of the fifth amendment is a clause that protects people from being forced to give testimony that would incriminate themselves. In a perfect world, it would only apply to people who have a legitimate threat of being incrimination if they truthful answer testimony, but there have been cases where a witness, refuse to answer quesion under the fifth amendment, essentially lying to the court, and falsely claiming that the answer would incriminate them even though it wouldn't. The law current protects people who do this from being charged with purjury, do you think this should change?

 

[progressive hunter]

The self-discrimination clause of the fifth amendment is a clause that protects people from being forced to give testimony that would incriminate themselves. In a perfect world, it would only apply to people who have a legitimate threat of being incrimination if they truthful answer testimony, but there have been cases where a witness, refuse to answer quesion under the fifth amendment, essentially lying to the court, and falsely claiming that the answer would incriminate them even though it wouldn't. The law current protects people who do this from being charged with purjury, do you think this should change?

youre forgetting that ANYTHING you say CAN AND WILL be used against you,,,

that means you can and should keep your mouth shut when talking to any government official not just cops,,

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The self-discrimination clause of the fifth amendment is a clause that protects people from being forced to give testimony that would incriminate themselves. In a perfect world, it would only apply to people who have a legitimate threat of being incrimination if they truthful answer testimony, but there have been cases where a witness, refuse to answer quesion under the fifth amendment, essentially lying to the court, and falsely claiming that the answer would incriminate them even though it wouldn't. The law current protects people who do this from being charged with purjury, do you think this should change?

WTF is quesion and purgery, dumbass?

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

 

[Leviticus]

youre forgetting that ANYTHING you say CAN AND WILL be used against you,,,

that means you can and should keep your mouth shut when talking to any government official not just cops,,

What does that have to do with a witness refusing to testify against someone by falsely pleading the fifth. This is a common tactic in organized crime, where a witness will imply that they were involved in a crime by pleading the fifth to get out of testifying.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The self-discrimination clause of the fifth amendment is a clause that protects people from being forced to give testimony that would incriminate themselves. In a perfect world, it would only apply to people who have a legitimate threat of being incrimination if they truthful answer testimony, but there have been cases where a witness, refuse to answer quesion under the fifth amendment, essentially lying to the court, and falsely claiming that the answer would incriminate them even though it wouldn't. The law current protects people who do this from being charged with purjury, do you think this should change?

No

 

[Leviticus]

WTF is quesion and purgery, dumbass?

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

Last time I checked the constitution doesnt give you the right to plead the fifth when you weren't involved in a crime, essentially lying under oath

 

[progressive hunter]

What does that have to do with a witness refusing to testify against someone by falsely pleading the fifth. This is a common tactic in organized crime, where a witness will imply that they were involved in a crime by pleading the fifth to get out of testifying.

please read comment #2

 

[whitehall]

The self-discrimination clause of the fifth amendment is a clause that protects people from being forced to give testimony that would incriminate themselves. In a perfect world, it would only apply to people who have a legitimate threat of being incrimination if they truthful answer testimony, but there have been cases where a witness, refuse to answer quesion under the fifth amendment, essentially lying to the court, and falsely claiming that the answer would incriminate them even though it wouldn't. The law current protects people who do this from being charged with purjury, do you think this should change?

The assumption would be that he 5th Amendment wouldn't apply if the accused was assumed to be guilty? WTF

 

[Esdraelon]

essentially lying under oath

If a citizen refrains from answering AT ALL... how can you say they are "lying under oath"? FTM, how many Americans would have the legal background or wherewithal to even JUDGE whether they'd be incriminated or not? No, no changes of the 5th. In fact, no changes to ANY part of our Constitution by any means other than the approved means of amendment described in the document.

 

[Leviticus]

The assumption would be that he 5th Amendment wouldn't apply if the accused was assumed to be guilty? WTF

No, these are cases where a witness false pleads the fifth, when there would be no danger of self incrimination, in order to avoid giving testimony which would incriminate the person they were required to testify against.

Essentially, the witness is falsely implying that they were involved in the crime and that giving testimony would incriminate themselves.

 

[MarcATL]

According to Donald J. Trump, yes.

 

[Leviticus]

If a citizen refrains from answering AT ALL... how can you say they are "lying under oath"? FTM, how many Americans would have the legal background or wherewithal to even JUDGE whether they'd be incriminated or not? No, no changes of the 5th. In fact, no changes to ANY part of our Constitution by any means other than the approved means of amendment described in the document.

The specific wording of the fifth amendment is that you cant be forced to incriminate yourself its not a right to refuse testifying aganst someone else. By pleading the fifth, it is assumed that you would be in danger of self incrimination if you truthfully answered questions.
What I am referring to are cases where a witness to a crime refuses to testify under the fifth amendment when there is no way they would incrimate themselves.

In my view, pleading the fifth means you are stating under oath that truthfully testifying would incrimate yourself. So doing so falsely should be purjury

 

[progressive hunter]

No, these are cases where a witness false pleads the fifth, when there would be no danger of self incrimination, in order to avoid giving testimony which would incriminate the person they were required to testify against.

Essentially, the witness is falsely implying that they were involved in the crime and that giving testimony would incriminate themselves.

no such thing as falsely pleading the 5th,,,

 

[tyroneweaver]

youre forgetting that ANYTHING you say CAN AND WILL be used against you,,,

that means you can and should keep your mouth shut when talking to any government official not just cops,,

"we don't comment on situations under investigation"
Is far worse

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The specific wording of the fifth amendment is that you cant be forced to incriminate yourself its not a right to refuse testifying aganst someone else. By pleading the fifth, it is assumed that you would be in danger of self incrimination if you truthfully answered questions.
What I am referring to are cases where a witness to a crime refuses to testify under the fifth amendment when there is no way they would incrimate themselves.

In my view, pleading the fifth means you are stating under oath that truthfully testifying would incrimate yourself. So doing so falsely should be purjury

No. The right against self incrimination is absolute. There is no requirement that it be taken in good faith.

 

[Muhammed]

Making it a crime to invoke your constitution civil rights is a crime itself.

 

[Leviticus]

No. The right against self incrimination is absolute. There is no requirement that it be taken in good faith.

There should be. If there is evidence that you knowing refused to testify under the 5th amendment, with the full knowledge that there was no possibilty of self-incrimination, it should be considered purjury.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Whether someone was involved in a crime, or was in anyway culpable of THIS OR ANY OTHER CRIME requires legal reasoning or legal judgement. Since non attorneys are prohibited from using such reasoning or judgement the right to take the 5th is absolute.

 

[Leviticus]

At least there is the prosecutions trump card of granting immunity. Mand DA's,if they believe a witness will plead the fifth, whether due to a legitimate threat of self incrimination exists ornot, will formally grant immunity. In most states immunity can be granted at will by the DA. And in many states and in federal court if granted immunity, a witness can't plead the fifth becauce they can't be prosecuted.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Last time I checked the constitution doesnt give you the right to plead the fifth when you weren't involved in a crime, essentially lying under oath

Where does it say that?

It doesn't. Try reading it again!