Capitalism Forever Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 The government should fully compensate the witness for the inconvenience, danger, lost wages, etc. that he incurs in order to testify. How do you determine exactly what amount the witness needs to be paid in order for it to qualify as full compensation? Wouldn't the witness have to agree that the amount paid is sufficient compensation for him? If he doesn't agree, can you really say he has been fully compensated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 How do you determine exactly what amount the witness needs to be paid in order for it to qualify as full compensation? Wouldn't the witness have to agree that the amount paid is sufficient compensation for him? If he doesn't agree, can you really say he has been fully compensated? That would be specified in statute or by custom the same as any other claim for civil damages is dealt with. For example, there might be a law that says witnesses must be compensated for their time according to their salary or billing rate, or at a fixed average rate and receive travel costs at so much per mile, etc. if they fill out a claim form and file it within a certain time. The law may also provide him or his family with bodyguards if there is a threat to them posed by his testifying, etc. If the witness doesn't think he has been properly compensated, he should be able to bring a civil suit to recover the difference just like people do when they don't think an insurance settlement is sufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 That would be specified in statute or by custom the same as any other claim for civil damages is dealt with. OK, that sounds reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 This topic is a source of confusion for me. My life belongs to me. I do not live for the sake of others. How then could anyone ever justify forcing me to testify in a courtroom against my will? If I am not the one who committed a crime, then by what right am I forced to appear in court? In AS, John Galt is accused of “crimes of omission” by Floyd Ferris. The argument that I am somehow “initiating force” by refusing to testify sounds like a similar accusation. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 My life belongs to me. I do not live for the sake of others. Do you not see that testifying in court against a criminal is in your best interest, even if you weren't directly the victim that time? Also, wouldn't you think it may be in your best interest to foster cooperation amongst others such that they may also testify for you should you become the victim next time? Isn't it in your best interest to assist in the protection of individual rights? I think it is in your best interest to put criminals in jail if you have information pertinent to the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Do you not see that testifying in court against a criminal is in your best interest, even if you weren't directly the victim that time? Also, wouldn't you think it may be in your best interest to foster cooperation amongst others such that they may also testify for you should you become the victim next time? Isn't it in your best interest to assist in the protection of individual rights? I think it is in your best interest to put criminals in jail if you have information pertinent to the case. Testifying to convict a criminal or to exonerate an innocent man would also be practicing the Objectivist virtue of JUSTICE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 My life belongs to me. I do not live for the sake of others. How then could anyone ever justify forcing me to testify in a courtroom against my will? If I am not the one who committed a crime, then by what right am I forced to appear in court? Because by refusing to testify you are violating the rights of others. For instance, say you have knowledge of the fact that the accused is actually innocent of the crime; by arbitrarily refusing to testify you are violating the rights of the innocent man. The power of subpoena, when objectively determined by proper law, is a necessary part of the government's charge for the protection of individual rights. Acting as an individual, you cannot properly be held legally responsible for refusing to help another man -- say, a man who is drowning -- but the government can impel you to act in a legal case as a necessary part of its administration of justice. In AS, John Galt is accused of “crimes of omission” by Floyd Ferris. The argument that I am somehow “initiating force” by refusing to testify sounds like a similar accusation. We are not here making a claim that you live your life for the sake of others, but rather that your inaction in certain legal circumstances makes you, in effect, an accessory to the crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedymastyr Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 My life belongs to me. I do not live for the sake of others. How then could anyone ever justify forcing me to testify in a courtroom against my will? Your life belongs to you by right. A government is required to protect that right (and any other rights you have). Upholding justice in defense of individual rights is a requirement of your rights ever being upheld. If someone rationally claims to have a right--and wants that right upheld in reality--he must act in accordance with the principles that will make the protection of his rights upheld. The government must be able to gain the information necessary to protect individual rights--which includes the subpoena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 We are not here making a claim that you live your life for the sake of others, but rather that your inaction in certain legal circumstances makes you, in effect, an accessory to the crime. But sometimes, if you are about to testify in a criminal proceeding, it puts your life at a good amount of risk. How can we force a person to risk his life when testifying is a danger to his/her life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 But sometimes, if you are about to testify in a criminal proceeding, it puts your life at a good amount of risk. How can we force a person to risk his life when testifying is a danger to his/her life? It is the government's responsibility to guard the witness and his values. That's what witness protection programs are for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 But sometimes, if you are about to testify in a criminal proceeding, it puts your life at a good amount of risk. How can we force a person to risk his life when testifying is a danger to his/her life? We cannot force him to testify, but he can still bear the consequences of his inaction. Take a similar legal situation. Say, for instance, that you have knowledge that a crime is going to be committed. If you do not beforehand report what you know to the police, are you not an accessory to the crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Say, for instance, that you have knowledge that a crime is going to be committed. If you do not beforehand report what you know to the police, are you not an accessory to the crime? No. Accessory: 1. One who incites, aids, or abets a lawbreaker in the commission of a crime but is not present at the time of the crime. Also called accessory before the fact. 2. One who aids a criminal after the commission of a crime, but was not present at the time of the crime. Also called accessory after the fact. (3.) a person who is not actually or constructively present but with criminal intent contributes as an assistant or instigator to the commission of a felony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedymastyr Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 No. Yes. Aiding and Abetting/Accessory A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html) (emphasis added) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Yes. Mere knowledge is not suffient - there must also be evidence of criminal intent, which must be evident in the suspect's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 My life belongs to me. I do not live for the sake of others. How then could anyone ever justify forcing me to testify in a courtroom against my will? Do you not see that testifying in court against a criminal is in your best interest I think Patrick does see that testifying is in his best interest, but he was talking about rights, not about interests. You have a right to act against your best interest. If you want to act against your best interest by refusing to testify, then a subpoena is a violation of your rights. So, now, to answer Patrick's question: Yes, it is a violation of your rights; it is force--but the initiator of the use of force is the criminal, not the government. If the criminal had not committed his crime, there would never be a need for the government to use force to make you testify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 I think Patrick does see that testifying is in his best interest, but he was talking about rights, not about interests. You have a right to act against your best interest. If you want to act against your best interest by refusing to testify, then a subpoena is a violation of your rights. Correct. So, now, to answer Patrick's question: Yes, it is a violation of your rights; it is force--but the initiator of the use of force is the criminal, not the government. If the criminal had not committed his crime, there would never be a need for the government to use force to make you testify. Interesting point. Could you elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Do you not see that testifying in court against a criminal is in your best interest, even if you weren't directly the victim that time? Also, wouldn't you think it may be in your best interest to foster cooperation amongst others such that they may also testify for you should you become the victim next time? Isn't it in your best interest to assist in the protection of individual rights? I think it is in your best interest to put criminals in jail if you have information pertinent to the case. Yes, it is in my best interest. And yes, I would testify. This is not the point. Even when it is in his best interest, it is still a rights violation to force a person to do something against his will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 What exactly does accessory pertain to? I am not knowledgeable about this subject. If I witness someone being mugged and do not report it to the police, have I committed a crime? How have I violated anyone's rights? Is not the mugger the one responsible for the crime, and not myself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 (edited) No. Okay. I am not a lawyer but one who is tells me that by current law mere knowledge of an impending crime is not sufficient for being an accessory before the fact. Evidently to be considered an accessory you have to support or further the crime in some manner. I assume you are not arguing against the immorality in failing to report knowledge of an impending crime to the police, just against its illegality? Can I also assume you would not argue against failure to provide the information if asked by the police to do so, as being illegal? This latter is really more closely allied in analogy to the issue of subpoena power that we have been discussing. Edit: Note that, even though it appears current law does not say so, I still think it would be proper to hold a person legally responsible if by inaction he fails to disclose beforehand his knowledge of a crime that is subsequently committed. Edited November 27, 2004 by stephen_speicher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 What exactly does accessory pertain to? I am not knowledgeable about this subject. Neither am I, but it appears that under current law it is not sufficient that inaction based on mere knoweldge of an impending crime is itself illegal. Evidently to be an accessory to a crime before the fact of the commission of the crime, you must support or further the crime in some manner. But, as I just pointed out in a previous post, a better (closer) analogy to the issue of subpoena power is refusal to divulge your knowledge of an impending crime when asked to do so by the police. Would you not agree that such a refusal should be illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Neither am I, but it appears that under current law it is not sufficient that inaction based on mere knoweldge of an impending crime is itself illegal. Evidently to be an accessory to a crime before the fact of the commission of the crime, you must support or further the crime in some manner. But, as I just pointed out in a previous post, a better (closer) analogy to the issue of subpoena power is refusal to divulge your knowledge of an impending crime when asked to do so by the police. Would you not agree that such a refusal should be illegal? I honestly don't know. I still have a hard time seeing how it can be justified to force someone who has not comitted any crime to divulge knowledge, testify, etc. Is not such a person an innocent bystander who did nothing wrong? What would then give anyone the right to force him to do something agaist his will? I agree that the moral thing for the witness to do would be to testify, what I am unable to grasp how such a thing ought to be legally required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Even when it is in his best interest, it is still a rights violation to force a person to do something against his will. Such as putting a criminal in jail against his will. That's a rights violation as well. As the nature and application of government power is always negative, the application of government power to protect individual rights is often going to be rights violations. Frequently, the only way that function (the protection of individual rights) can be carried out is by use of subpoena, a negative power like all the rest of its powers. Some "rights violations" are necessary and proper actions by the government, but they are always negative. As has also been stated, and with which I agree, the government has not initiated this force on the witness, the criminal did when he committed the crime. Ideally, and in reality it is sometimes the case, judges take into account the rights violation of the witnesses in his determination of punishment of the offender. Most judges and courts recognize the inconvenience caused to people by having to have them attend court to testify. Now, from a practical aspect based on my experience in my jurisdiction, usually "hostile" witnesses are not made to testify (with murder trials being the most frequent exception to that). One type of hostile witness is someone who just does not want to testify. When you put people on the stand who don't want to be there, they can, and sometimes do, wreck the prosecution. This is wrong, but it happens. Proving perjury is frequently very difficult (if not impossible), and it's rare that people actually get punished for refusing to testify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 it is not sufficient that inaction based on mere knoweldge of an impending crime is itself illegal. Evidently to be an accessory to a crime before the fact of the commission of the crime, you must support or further the crime in some manner That is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 I honestly don't know. I still have a hard time seeing how it can be justified to force someone who has not comitted any crime to divulge knowledge, testify, etc. Is not such a person an innocent bystander who did nothing wrong? What would then give anyone the right to force him to do something agaist his will? I agree that the moral thing for the witness to do would be to testify, what I am unable to grasp how such a thing ought to be legally required. I think the argument essentially is that the police must be able to investigate in order to perform their proper function, and proper subpoena power is a necessary tool for a proper investigation and subsequent administration of justice. (As an aside, note that your "innocent bystander" frequently is involved in proper police activities, whether he wants to be or not. For instance, if the police are chasing a criminal do they have to stop and ask your "innocent bystander" for permission to cross his front lawn during the pursuit? Such a pursuit is part and parcel of the police exercising their proper function and the "innocent bystander" cannot just choose to disallow the police access. Would you argue that the property rights of the "innocent bystander" are being violated and that the police should not be able to cross front lawns in pursuit of a criminal unless they first ask permission of each "innocent bystander.") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 How can we force a person to risk his life when testifying is a danger to his/her life? The presumption here is that the witness' life is not already in danger based on his knowledge of the crime and potential as a witness. I would venture to say that if a criminal was willing to actually go as far as killing a witness to prevent his incarceration, he would do it before any trial anyway, and probably regardless of whether or not the witness was actually planning on testifying. People like that rule by fear from the start, not just when they are under the gun. Once you cower to them the first time, they own you. The morality of drug prosecution aside, this is why we see neighborhoods overrun by drug dealers. There is a type of logic that I see in some victims/witnesses that I don't understand. They have already seen or been a victim to a crime, and yet they think that maintaining a condition of lawlessness (by refusing to "get involved") is going to create or maintain a better condition than supporting a more lawful society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.