Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
a task or action that someone is required to perform.
the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.
In the absence of a coercive state demanding said obligations by force, to what authority does your obligation/responsibility belong to? A general morality? Some cosmic unseen authority that is the ultimate collective to which individuals must subordinate themselves to? On a desert island, to whom am I obligated?
There is no "duty" to do no harm. There is the natural law that says initiations of force are forfeiture of rights, up to and including the right to life, and those having their individual natural rights violated can decide for themselves what is and is not a proportional response, i.e. defense against their rights being violated. Thus, the individual is not obligated whatsoever. What should drive the individual to not violate the rights of others is the knowledge that in doing so, they totally forfeit ANY AND ALL of their own rights, voluntarily and knowingly.
There is no "duty" to prevent harm from being done. If I as an individual see harm being done, and estimate that any attempt to stop it will result in a) my harm or b) my possibly harming others via an initiation of force that is not a defensive response to force being applied against me, my first "duty" is always to my defense and protection of MY natural individual rights. If I come to harm, I knowingly surrendered my right to not be harmed, and if I knowingly harm others outside of a defensive response to violations against me and/or my property, then I forfeit my individual rights of my own volition. Under no system of logically consistent morality is their an obligation to forfeit your natural rights.
The word "duty" means subservience to a higher authority, thus it destroys the concept of individual liberty and natural rights, especially if you claim that existence confers such subservience to said higher authority. It's one of those lofty sounding things that is in reality vile and destructive, right up there with "fair."
That's a lot of typing to say "I've got mine, etc."
Okay thanks, I understand that, but that is not really the question I meant to ask.
What I mean is, why does the prosecutor bother to arrest a victim in a crime to compel them to testify at all, if the victim has the right to remain silent anyway? What good does arresting them do therefore. It's a contradiction or a loophole, if you will, and I was wondering how does a prosecutor get around that loophole, legally?
You are NO undersigned the laws that have been explained to you. Give it up!
Let me get this straight.... You feel it is OK to go hands on, because someone would not speak.
Coercion... Torture. So it is a WAR to you? Now you know why people carry weapons and bad cops get shot.
There are many laws that people do not necessarily feel is right but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Basically the difference is at some point you have to talk. Thats when youre in court on the stand. If the miranda rights counted in court, cases would never get done if people didnt have to talk, a line had to be drawn.
The miranda rights are ONLY for when youre arrested. The reason is that cops and prosecutors will twist your words around when in court to make you look guilty. Thats why you dont talk to them, and thats they MUST read you the miranda rights under law. They are telling you straight up that youre going to get hosed. But if youre on the stand in a trial, you'll never prove yourself innocent by not telling your side of the story (or whatever your lawyer says).
That's a lot of typing to say "I've got mine, etc."
Appeal to ridicule and straw man.
Doesn't refute a single bit of what I wrote.
And I already posted relevant "when you'll be required to testify or not" rules from a bunch of lawyers who post that kinda stuff. I simply argue with the philosophical concept of being born into a state of obligation to others.
Basically the difference is at some point you have to talk. Thats when youre in court on the stand. If the miranda rights counted in court, cases would never get done if people didnt have to talk, a line had to be drawn.
The miranda rights are ONLY for when youre arrested. The reason is that cops and prosecutors will twist your words around when in court to make you look guilty. Thats why you dont talk to them, and thats they MUST read you the miranda rights under law. They are telling you straight up that youre going to get hosed. But if youre on the stand in a trial, you'll never prove yourself innocent by not telling your side of the story (or whatever your lawyer says).
That's not entirely the case. The 5th amendment rights - as outlined in the Miranda recitation - are only relevant for self-incrimination.
If you're under investigation or a defendant in court, you have every right to remain silent. As a defendant, you're not obligated to take the stand at all - many don't, and the jury will be instructed to not take that into account.
If you're a witness... Yes, then you have to take the stand, and answer truthfully.
Fifth amendment flowchart from the highly, highly recommended illustrated guide to criminal law:
Okay thanks, I understand that, but that is not really the question I meant to ask.
What I mean is, why does the prosecutor bother to arrest a victim in a crime to compel them to testify at all, if the victim has the right to remain silent anyway? What good does arresting them do therefore. It's a contradiction or a loophole, if you will, and I was wondering how does a prosecutor get around that loophole, legally?
Prosecutors have a given length of time they can hold a person for questioning. The time limit varies from state to state, I think, but prosecutors will continue to question someone, even when he refuses to answer. Sitting in jail for a day or so often changes a suspect's mind.
The prosecutor and police put lots of pressure on any suspect during questioning. They have many ways to use pressure to find out what they need to know, and not all of those things are vocal statements. Watching a suspect's actions while waiting in a room may display their innocence or guilt just by the way they're acting.
Very few suspects remain completely silent, even when they invoke their rights. An innocent person will want to explain why he's innocent, and a guilty person will lie to cover up his guilt. Both of these can be indicated in the small things a suspect says that aren't directly connected to any questions, but will be on the matters at hand in some way.
Prosecutors have a given length of time they can hold a person for questioning. The time limit varies from state to state, I think, but prosecutors will continue to question someone, even when he refuses to answer. Sitting in jail for a day or so often changes a suspect's mind.
The prosecutor and police put lots of pressure on any suspect during questioning. They have many ways to use pressure to find out what they need to know, and not all of those things are vocal statements. Watching a suspect's actions while waiting in a room may display their innocence or guilt just by the way they're acting.
Very few suspects remain completely silent, even when they invoke their rights. An innocent person will want to explain why he's innocent, and a guilty person will lie to cover up his guilt. Both of these can be indicated in the small things a suspect says that aren't directly connected to any questions, but will be on the matters at hand in some way.
The right to remain silent is 100% in place for people being prosecuted. (If they invoke it.)
There is no right to remain silent if you are not in any risk of incriminating yourself - for instance, if you've been granted immunity.
a task or action that someone is required to perform.
the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.
In the absence of a coercive state demanding said obligations by force, to what authority does your obligation/responsibility belong to? A general morality? Some cosmic unseen authority that is the ultimate collective to which individuals must subordinate themselves to? On a desert island, to whom am I obligated?
There is no "duty" to do no harm. There is the natural law that says initiations of force are forfeiture of rights, up to and including the right to life, and those having their individual natural rights violated can decide for themselves what is and is not a proportional response, i.e. defense against their rights being violated. Thus, the individual is not obligated whatsoever. What should drive the individual to not violate the rights of others is the knowledge that in doing so, they totally forfeit ANY AND ALL of their own rights, voluntarily and knowingly.
There is no "duty" to prevent harm from being done. If I as an individual see harm being done, and estimate that any attempt to stop it will result in a) my harm or b) my possibly harming others via an initiation of force that is not a defensive response to force being applied against me, my first "duty" is always to my defense and protection of MY natural individual rights. If I come to harm, I knowingly surrendered my right to not be harmed, and if I knowingly harm others outside of a defensive response to violations against me and/or my property, then I forfeit my individual rights of my own volition. Under no system of logically consistent morality is their an obligation to forfeit your natural rights.
The word "duty" means subservience to a higher authority, thus it destroys the concept of individual liberty and natural rights, especially if you claim that existence confers such subservience to said higher authority. It's one of those lofty sounding things that is in reality vile and destructive, right up there with "fair."
I agree with you about duty in the ways your expressed here. However, the word exists for those who live in civilization whether we agree to live in civilization or not. It has come to a point where no matter where we go on Earth, our actions will affect somebody, so we teach the concept of duty early on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
