Re: GAK and self-incrimination?

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Bill Stewart wrote:

> At 02:57 AM 12/10/95 -0800, you wrote:
> >The Fifth protects you against *compelled* self-incrimination - in
> >particular, the right to be free from the "cruel trilemma" of
> >
> >        o       conviction of a substantive crime, based on your
> >                (true) testimony
> >        o       conviction of perjury, for lying when asked to incriminate
> >                yourself
> >        o       contempt of court sanctions, for refusing to answer
> 
> Testimony was often compelled by more direct means than threatened
> contempt citations.  Piling rocks on people until they talked was
> still in use in the 1600s, unless I've got my dates wrong.

And later.

The term 'pressing a defendant for a plea' came from the practice of 
piling heavy weights on a defendant and 'pressing' him into the very 
floor of the court. (As defendants who did not admit a plea would save 
their family from being held accountable to judgment, the incentive to 
remain silent was high).  Often weight was piled atop the hapless 
defendant until he or she expired, having refused to enter a plea.

> It may have gone out of fashion slightly after witch-burning,
> but was still in recent cultural memory of the Constitution's authors.
> #--
> #				Thanks;  Bill
> # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
> # Phone +1-510-247-0663 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281
> 
> 

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information