Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Jun 28, 2005 4:45:13 GMT -6
I think I'm right in saying that only the defence can call the accused to the stand in a trial. If this is true, why is it the case. Surely the prosecution should be allowed to force the accused to take the stand and give evidence. The argument that he/she has the right to silence is crap, as all other witnesses have to take the stand or be charged with contempt. Why is this the case, and can anything be done to change this?.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 28, 2005 5:12:48 GMT -6
I think I'm right in saying that only the defence can call the accused to the stand in a trial. If this is true, why is it the case. Surely the prosecution should be allowed to force the accused to take the stand and give evidence. The argument that he/she has the right to silence is crap, as all other witnesses have to take the stand or be charged with contempt. Why is this the case, and can anything be done to change this?. The right of a defendant to not take the stand is enshrined in our Bill of Rights here. You're not going to get very far arguing against it with Americans, I think. And no, nothing can be done to change it.
|
|
Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Jun 28, 2005 7:08:23 GMT -6
I'm just wondering why its there in the bill of rights at all. There must have been a reason initially, but I cant think of one. Would be interesting if a poll was done of the public as to whether this should be changed. I'd bet 90% would say ditch it.
|
|
|
Post by Dea on Jun 28, 2005 12:10:22 GMT -6
I had to look this up, myself and found the following explanation, although it took me several times to understand it, it makes sense. Apparently the concept goes back a long way, it's not just an American/English one. experts.about.com/q/342/3548902.htmThe principle comes from the concept that it is inherently unjust to force a man to participate in the process that would kill him (virtually all crimes at that time were punishable by death). It was also an attempt to set a clear distinction from the older medieval inquisitorial system where an accused was tortured into confession before execution. The newer legal system forced development of a case against the accused without any cooperation. The State would have to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt before an accused would be compelled to respond. The right is one of those things that is really based on experience rather than logic. Logically, why shouldn't an accused be compelled to answer? An innocent man has nothing to fear and a guilty man should be prosecuted and found guilty. But history has taught us repeatedly that when an accused can be compelled to cooperate in his own prosecution, it all too frequently leads to prosecutorial abuse. The right helps ensure an accusatory system of justice rather than an inquisitorial one.
|
|
|
Post by dio on Jun 28, 2005 20:55:17 GMT -6
A person should have every right to not incriminate themself.As for others called by the court to offer testimony,it is as it should be,a citizen of a State has every obligation to testify against those who violate the law of society.The laws are written to protect society as a whole hence each member shares in the effort to insure that the laws do as intended.
|
|
Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Jun 30, 2005 4:12:12 GMT -6
I have to disagree very strongly with the right not to incriminate yourself, if you are remaining silent purely not to inciminate youself, then by default you are guilty. If it is an obligation of every citizen to testify against those who break the law, then it should also be an obligation of every citizen to answer as to their actions when accused. While I appreciate that in the past people have been tortured to get "the truth", however if all that is required is an answer to questions, this is hardly torture. We are asking here for nothing more than is requested of the witnesses in a case. Remember here that a rape victim has no choice about appearing in the witness box despite the rape victim being the victim of a crime he/she would never want to discuss in public. Why therefore do we spare the accused.
I am surprised that this isnt something that people are looking to change, but then again, maybe its just me missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jun 30, 2005 12:39:32 GMT -6
I have to disagree very strongly with the right not to incriminate yourself, if you are remaining silent purely not to inciminate youself, then by default you are guilty. If it is an obligation of every citizen to testify against those who break the law, then it should also be an obligation of every citizen to answer as to their actions when accused. While I appreciate that in the past people have been tortured to get "the truth", however if all that is required is an answer to questions, this is hardly torture. We are asking here for nothing more than is requested of the witnesses in a case. Remember here that a rape victim has no choice about appearing in the witness box despite the rape victim being the victim of a crime he/she would never want to discuss in public. Why therefore do we spare the accused. I am surprised that this isnt something that people are looking to change, but then again, maybe its just me missing the point. your signature line suggests quite clearly that you're against killing murderers but you now suggest we force or torture people to confess??? how does that work?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 30, 2005 15:59:16 GMT -6
I have to disagree very strongly with the right not to incriminate yourself, if you are remaining silent purely not to inciminate youself, then by default you are guilty. If it is an obligation of every citizen to testify against those who break the law, then it should also be an obligation of every citizen to answer as to their actions when accused. While I appreciate that in the past people have been tortured to get "the truth", however if all that is required is an answer to questions, this is hardly torture. We are asking here for nothing more than is requested of the witnesses in a case. Remember here that a rape victim has no choice about appearing in the witness box despite the rape victim being the victim of a crime he/she would never want to discuss in public. Why therefore do we spare the accused. I am surprised that this isnt something that people are looking to change, but then again, maybe its just me missing the point. Yes, you are missing the point. It is all too easy to convict an innocent, but inarticulate or emotionally maladjusted, man based on his own testimony in a court of law. I've heard lots of talk about overturning the first, second, fourth and eighth amendments to the United States Constitution, but the fifth and sixth amendments are sacrosanct. Those who accuse defenders of rape are just that -- accusers -- and should be treated accordingly. Whether or not accusers are victims of rape, and if they were, that they were victimized by the accused, are matters for juries to decide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2005 19:21:29 GMT -6
I want to keep all of the Bill of Rights. It may seem inconvenient at times, but those rights do not just protect the guilty, they protect all of us, especially the innocent. (If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you.” – Larry Flint, Publisher of Hustler Magazine.) When a person goes on trial, it is the People of the State or the People of the US against a person. The whole power of the government comes down on a defendant. It is the responsibility of the government to prove a person guilty, not the person being accused.
We consider a person innocent until proven guilty. We would rather have 10 guilty go free than to have one innocent person go to prison. When you take away a right like this, you end up with justice like in Russia. I read a case of a guy there where HIS defense attorney apologized to the court for representing an enemy of the state. Wanna guess if he was convicted?
The Bill of Rights is sacred in this country. Both the Right and Left can agree that they make our government special. The sides sometimes simply disagree on how to interpret them.
I'll leave you with the saying, "it's the worst system in the world, except all of the others."
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 30, 2005 19:29:42 GMT -6
I want to keep all of the Bill of Rights. It may seem inconvenient at times, but those rights do not just protect the guilty, they protect all of us, especially the innocent. (If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you.” – Larry Flint, Publisher of Hustler Magazine.) When a person goes on trial, it is the People of the State or the People of the US against a person. The whole power of the government comes down on a defendant. It is the responsibility of the government to prove a person guilty, not the person being accused. We consider a person innocent until proven guilty. We would rather have 10 guilty go free than to have one innocent person go to prison. When you take away a right like this, you end up with justice like in Russia. I read a case of a guy there where HIS defense attorney apologized to the court for representing an enemy of the state. Wanna guess if he was convicted? The Bill of Rights is sacred in this country. Both the Right and Left can agree that they make our government special. The sides sometimes simply disagree on how to interpret them. I'll leave you with the saying, "it's the worst system in the world, except all of the others." Speaking as someone who used to work for Larry Flynt, I commend you on a good post, CM. You're dam#ned right.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 30, 2005 19:34:32 GMT -6
I think I'm right in saying that only the defence can call the accused to the stand in a trial. If this is true, why is it the case. Surely the prosecution should be allowed to force the accused to take the stand and give evidence. The argument that he/she has the right to silence is crap, as all other witnesses have to take the stand or be charged with contempt. Why is this the case, and can anything be done to change this?. You're peeing into the wind, Jules. As a Brit, you just don't get it. Americans take great pride in having to prove a defendant guilty without having him or her testify. It ennobles us and our system of justice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2005 20:10:50 GMT -6
I want to keep all of the Bill of Rights. It may seem inconvenient at times, but those rights do not just protect the guilty, they protect all of us, especially the innocent. (If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you.” – Larry Flint, Publisher of Hustler Magazine.) When a person goes on trial, it is the People of the State or the People of the US against a person. The whole power of the government comes down on a defendant. It is the responsibility of the government to prove a person guilty, not the person being accused. We consider a person innocent until proven guilty. We would rather have 10 guilty go free than to have one innocent person go to prison. When you take away a right like this, you end up with justice like in Russia. I read a case of a guy there where HIS defense attorney apologized to the court for representing an enemy of the state. Wanna guess if he was convicted? The Bill of Rights is sacred in this country. Both the Right and Left can agree that they make our government special. The sides sometimes simply disagree on how to interpret them. I'll leave you with the saying, "it's the worst system in the world, except all of the others." Speaking as someone who used to work for Larry Flynt, I commend you on a good post, CM. You're dam#ned right. Thank you. And if you have any back issues... ;D ;D You gotta admire the guy. He is a bit of a nut job, but I loved how he stood up for his rights (and stuck it to Fartwell ;D ;D).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2005 20:13:28 GMT -6
I think I'm right in saying that only the defence can call the accused to the stand in a trial. If this is true, why is it the case. Surely the prosecution should be allowed to force the accused to take the stand and give evidence. The argument that he/she has the right to silence is crap, as all other witnesses have to take the stand or be charged with contempt. Why is this the case, and can anything be done to change this?. You're peeing into the wind, Jules. As a Brit, you just don't get it. Americans take great pride in having to prove a defendant guilty without having him or her testify. It ennobles us and our system of justice. Maybe he's just pissing up a rope? ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jun 30, 2005 21:24:12 GMT -6
I have to disagree very strongly with the right not to incriminate yourself, if you are remaining silent purely not to inciminate youself, then by default you are guilty. Not necessarily. For example, someone who's on trial for murder whose alibi is that he was transporting drugs from another state wouldn't be guilty of the murder, but would incriminate himself in an unrelated crime that the police may not even know about by speaking to police. Jurors are also instructed that they may not presume guilt based on the accused's silence. As another poster stated, this is a protection for every American citizen (and I'm sure non-citizens) tried in the United States that goes back more than 200 years. It's not going to change. The average citizen is free to presume whatever they want, but as the illustration above shows, they may not be right. If it is an obligation of every citizen to testify against those who break the law, then it should also be an obligation of every citizen to answer as to their actions when accused. I don't believe there's any law or statute that makes it an obligation for anyone to testify against lawbreakers. The majority of people will willingly testify because of a feeling of civic duty. Witnesses who don't want to cooperate, either because they don't want to be involved, or they just don't care, can be subpoenaed, but that sometimes backfires due to a loss of memory or a change of story. Additionally, in some types of cases, prosecutors will do their best to make their case without calling some witnesses, such as young children who may have relevant and damaging information, but would be traumatized by the experience. While I appreciate that in the past people have been tortured to get "the truth", however if all that is required is an answer to questions, this is hardly torture. We are asking here for nothing more than is requested of the witnesses in a case. Witnesses have the right to refuse to be interviewed by police. Nothing compels a witness to provide police officers, prosecutors or any other agent of the state or federal government with information. Again, most people feel a civic duty and a desire to help, but those who don't have the freedom to not become involved if they so chose. Remember here that a rape victim has no choice about appearing in the witness box despite the rape victim being the victim of a crime he/she would never want to discuss in public. That, too, is not necessarily true. If the victim doesn't want to testify, or refuses to testify, the case is usually dropped unless there's sufficient information to get a conviction without the victim's testimony. The victim not being willing to testify is the reason Michael Jackson wasn't prosecuted in 1993. Why therefore do we spare the accused. Victims and witnesses aren't legally required to testify against their will. Not forcing an accused to testify, or to answer police questions actually works in favor of the judicial system, public and police. If a suspect was "forced" to answer questions asked by police, he/she could claim that his/her answers were given under duress or coercion and the information they gave was not the truth, but what the police wanted them to say. If an accused was "forced" to testify at a trial, he/she could likewise claim the testimony was given under duress and not of their own free will and that the answers were not the truth, but what the examining court wanted to hear. Convicted individuals would have a "pass" to forever challenge their own statements and the incriminating information gained from them. Suspects still confess, and with proper Miranda warnings given by police, those confessions convict them in the majority of cases. Defendants still testify at their own trials and are convicted in the majority of cases. When someone confesses, or testifies at trial, it's because they chose to do so, not because they were compelled to. I am surprised that this isnt something that people are looking to change, but then again, maybe its just me missing the point. It couldn't be changed even if people wanted it to in the United States. kma367
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 30, 2005 23:54:12 GMT -6
Not necessarily. For example, someone who's on trial for murder whose alibi is that he was transporting drugs from another state wouldn't be guilty of the murder, but would incriminate himself in an unrelated crime that the police may not even know about by speaking to police. Very well done, KMA.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 1, 2005 0:50:12 GMT -6
Thank you. And if you have any back issues... ;D ;D You gotta admire the guy. He is a bit of a nut job, but I loved how he stood up for his rights (and stuck it to Fartwell ;D ;D). It was a fun job, but I never met the man.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jul 1, 2005 4:41:13 GMT -6
Excellent post, kma.
|
|
Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Jul 1, 2005 7:58:30 GMT -6
your signature line suggests quite clearly that you're against killing murderers but you now suggest we force or torture people to confess??? how does that work? I've never suggested torturing people, if you read my post, I stated that "all that is required is an answer to a question", asking a question and holding someone in contempt if they fail to answer is acceptable in my book. I could be wrong, but in the UK I believe that is is the law that the accused can be called to the stand in a trial, and this works well. Its abviously not going to change in the US, but it does surprise me that those on this board support it so strongly. Surely you would like those accused of murder to have to answer questions in court.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 1, 2005 8:58:43 GMT -6
Surely you would like those accused of murder to have to answer questions in court. Actually, I 'd rather not hear the murderer's excuses. It's bad enough hearing them from his lawyer. The prosecution throws everything at the capital murder defendant. There's no reason to jeopardize a guilty verdict by forcing a confession out of the murderer during its trial. Of course, that can happen if the defense calls the murderer to testify, but that rarely happens, for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 1, 2005 10:43:37 GMT -6
your signature line suggests quite clearly that you're against killing murderers but you now suggest we force or torture people to confess??? how does that work? I've never suggested torturing people, if you read my post, I stated that "all that is required is an answer to a question", asking a question and holding someone in contempt if they fail to answer is acceptable in my book. I could be wrong, but in the UK I believe that is is the law that the accused can be called to the stand in a trial, and this works well. Its abviously not going to change in the US, but it does surprise me that those on this board support it so strongly. Surely you would like those accused of murder to have to answer questions in court. no, you didn't suggest torture, I did. so when he smiles and says bite me, just how do you propose to "make" or "force" this person to simply answer your questions? contempt? how do you enforce that? a fine? inprisonment? for how long? life? I still can't see why you think it's bad to force a CONVICTED murderer to the gallos, but it's OK to force an UNCONVICTED person to do anything.
|
|
Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Jul 1, 2005 15:29:03 GMT -6
If I was called as a witness in a trial and refused to answer any questions, I would be held in contempt. Now I'm not exactly sure what the sentence is if I refuse to answer questions, but I still fail to see why I as a witness should have less rights than the accused.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 1, 2005 16:04:11 GMT -6
because the burden of proof is on the prosecution and accusors, which in a way includes witnesses.
we have to prove he is guilty, he doesn't have to prove he is innocent.
|
|
|
Post by sally104 on Jul 1, 2005 16:57:08 GMT -6
This has to deal with the right to silence and the burden of proof is on the prosection I have to disagree very strongly with the right not to incriminate yourself, if you are remaining silent purely not to inciminate youself, then by default you are guilty. If it is an obligation of every citizen to testify against those who break the law, then it should also be an obligation of every citizen to answer as to their actions when accused. While I appreciate that in the past people have been tortured to get "the truth", however if all that is required is an answer to questions, this is hardly torture. We are asking here for nothing more than is requested of the witnesses in a case. Remember here that a rape victim has no choice about appearing in the witness box despite the rape victim being the victim of a crime he/she would never want to discuss in public. Why therefore do we spare the accused. I am surprised that this isnt something that people are looking to change, but then again, maybe its just me missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jul 1, 2005 21:58:05 GMT -6
Joseph and Rick, thanks. Jules, If I was called as a witness in a trial and refused to answer any questions, I would be held in contempt. Now I'm not exactly sure what the sentence is if I refuse to answer questions, but I still fail to see why I as a witness should have less rights than the accused. First, you're citing a situation in which the witness is actually brought into court. Often if a witness isn't fully cooperative, or expresses a hesitancy to testify, a prosecutor or defense attorney will try to make the case without the witness' testimony because of the traps that you can fall into with someone who's not willingly and happily cooperating with you. There isn't a one-answer-fits-all response regarding witnesses, so I'll illustrate with a few examples. And there are many subtle differences between criminal and civil cases, but there are also many similarities procedurally. If a witness is being pressured by the authorities to lie, for example, and that witness is subpoenaed to testify, he/she can hire an attorney to deal with the authorities and courts. That attorney would file a motion to have the subpoena quashed and for attorneys' fees. If he wins, the witness doesn't have to testify and his/her attorney gets paid by the state. If a witness simply doesn't want to testify, but is subpoenaed, he/she can get on the stand and say they don't remember anything. Or, the witness can change his/her statement to hurt the side that forced them to testify. I've actually seen this happen in a civil case, in which the independent witness to an automobile accident blamed the accident on the plaintiff, rather than the defendant. The witness contacted the office when subpoenaed and said he didn't want to be involved, but the attorney refused to let him out of the subpoena. When questioned about the change in testimony, since the police report said the defendant was at fault, the witness claimed to have told the police officer it was the plaintiff's fault, but the cop wrote it down wrong. That put the police officer's testimony about the report into question and the plaintiff ended up losing. If a witness participates in criminal activity and is subpoenaed, he can plead the Fifth because answers that tend to incriminate him in that case could be used against him in his own prosecution. kma367
|
|
|
Post by Shaka on Jul 2, 2005 2:13:33 GMT -6
I think I'm right in saying that only the defence can call the accused to the stand in a trial. If this is true, why is it the case. Surely the prosecution should be allowed to force the accused to take the stand and give evidence. The argument that he/she has the right to silence is crap, as all other witnesses have to take the stand or be charged with contempt. Why is this the case, and can anything be done to change this?. You're peeing into the wind, Jules. As a Brit, you just don't get it. Americans take great pride in having to prove a defendant guilty without having him or her testify. It ennobles us and our system of justice. Joe as a Brit I can tell you this isn't a Brits vs. Yankies thing. You'll find that the basis of the US legal system is colonial british, it has of course evolved over 200 yrs. Don't forget the original bill of rights was the Magna Carter signed by King/Prince John, although intended only for the noblity it never the less perculated down. Also thanks to King Henry II the laws of medeval england was enforced by courts of law, even the King himself had to act lawfully. Many of the principles in the US constitutions wasn't "invented" by americans. In fact the US constitution is a product of the enlightenment, Ben Franklin was in his own time a recognised ( pardon the pun ) luminary of this period. To my understanding both the US and French constitutions were affected by the works of Voltare, and both documents eeriely similar. Jules despite the political elite in Britain, people still have the right to silence. As many have said without it genuinely inocent people would be convicted. It's a short hop to the Napoleon code where a person is presumed guilty and HAS to prove himself inocent. Can you imagine trying to match the resources of the state, the prisons would be overflowing with inocent people. All the state has to do is pick on someone and say it was him, imagine high profile cases like poor Natalee in Aruba. People here are already convinced those boys are guilty, although we know next to nothing. Or a vindictive ex who says he raped her, or worse he molested the kids this happends alot and ruins peoples lives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2005 14:10:21 GMT -6
If I was called as a witness in a trial and refused to answer any questions, I would be held in contempt. Now I'm not exactly sure what the sentence is if I refuse to answer questions, but I still fail to see why I as a witness should have less rights than the accused. Welcome to the real world. The accused has FAR too many rights, and yes, it does seem as tho they have more rights than we do. And ya know what? As long as we keep giving them rights, they always want more! (I'm speaking of convicted criminals now) You give them the DP, and they want only LWOP You give them LWOP, and they want Life with parole option. You give them an hour in a day room and they want a TV too. You give them visitation, and then they want contact visits You give them a food, and they complain if it isn't something great. You give them mail service, and they want scumpals You give them scumpals, and then they wanna marry them. You let them get married, and then they want to have children together You give them a phone call, and they complain that it's not long enough You give them a bed to sleep in, and they complain that it's too hard You give them free medical, and they complain that it's inadequate As I've said time and time again....you give them an inch, and they cry if they can't also have a mile! No rights are ever enough for the condemned inmate, that really should have NONE! (But, as far as in a court of law, I do agree that everyone should have the right to not incriminate themselves.)
|
|
|
Post by RED on Jul 7, 2005 20:15:40 GMT -6
Apples and oranges mama. The accused DESERVES all rights under the law. It is the burden of the government to prove that one of its citizens has violated the law. As you know, such is called the presumption of innocence. One cannot uphold that presumption without granting certain rights to accused individuals. Due process of law demands those rights. The group that you refer to is not the "accused" but the CONVICTED. After the government meets its burden of proving someone guilty that individual is no longer an "accused". You are correct when you point out that convicts keep demanding "rights" to which they are not entitled. It is up to legislatures to make sure that doing time in prison remains just that; PRISON time. Love, RED If I was called as a witness in a trial and refused to answer any questions, I would be held in contempt. Now I'm not exactly sure what the sentence is if I refuse to answer questions, but I still fail to see why I as a witness should have less rights than the accused. Welcome to the real world. The accused has FAR too many rights, and yes, it does seem as tho they have more rights than we do. And ya know what? As long as we keep giving them rights, they always want more! (I'm speaking of convicted criminals now) You give them the DP, and they want only LWOP You give them LWOP, and they want Life with parole option. You give them an hour in a day room and they want a TV too. You give them visitation, and then they want contact visits You give them a food, and they complain if it isn't something great. You give them mail service, and they want scumpals You give them scumpals, and then they wanna marry them. You let them get married, and then they want to have children together You give them a phone call, and they complain that it's not long enough You give them a bed to sleep in, and they complain that it's too hard You give them free medical, and they complain that it's inadequate As I've said time and time again....you give them an inch, and they cry if they can't also have a mile! No rights are ever enough for the condemned inmate, that really should have NONE! (But, as far as in a court of law, I do agree that everyone should have the right to not incriminate themselves.)
|
|
|
Post by californian on Jan 7, 2006 9:33:25 GMT -6
I'm just wondering why its there in the bill of rights at all. There must have been a reason initially, but I cant think of one. Would be interesting if a poll was done of the public as to whether this should be changed. I'd bet 90% would say ditch it. We have a Bill of Rights mainly to stop the kind of crap that caused us to kick your redcoat *%#*@* out of here in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 7, 2006 10:55:34 GMT -6
We have a Bill of Rights mainly to stop the kind of crap that caused us to kick your redcoat *%#*@* out of here in the first place. Ah, c'mon. Play nice. Besides, at the time, about a third of us Colonials were for staying with the King, the Tories. Another third were pro-independence. The last third were undecided, looking to see which way the political winds blew. Unfortunately for the British, the actions of some of their officers help drive many of the undecideds over to the pro-revolution side. There is a neat little tidbit of history I grew up around. In the old downtown area of Norfolk, VA, but now off the waterfront because of landfill, is a church. St. Paul's Episcopal Church, to be exact. It was one of the only brick structures in the then predominantly wooden waterfront town. Back on New Year's Day, 1776, when the British shelled and burned the port of Norfolk, something happened. Luck, fate, an act of God, a portent, whatever it was, it was strange. One of the naval cannonballs struck the church high on the south-facing side. It did not explode, nor holed it, but merely shoved the bricks aside, becoming encased by the wall (see story below). That church and that cannonball are still there to this day. www.norfolkhistorical.org/highlights/18.html"It seems that the ball, fired from the British fleet, January 1, 1776, and which lodged in the south side of the the head of the cross (the old church being constructed in the shape of a Latin cross), remained there for many years until, during the time the building was unused and the graveyard neglected, it fell from its position and was forgotten. "Some years later the church was reopened by the present congregation, the building repaired and the cemetary put in order. "About 1848 the assertion was made that the ball had fallen from its place unnoticed and was probably imbedded in the earth in the angle formed by the church and the street wall, and to test its correctness, the late Capt. F.W. Seabury, a vestryman of the church, got Mr. Wm. W. Lamb (also a vestryman) to send his servant with a spade to the churchyard. "Under the direction of Capt. Seabury, the servant found the ball immediately under where it had first lodged in the wall, about 18 inches below the surface of the earth. "The rusty old ball was seen soon after its resurrection by the writer, and was the identical one fired by the British frigate Liverpool into the venerable edifice. "The same ball is now fastened in the wall with plaster, in the place it first struck when fired."
|
|
|
Post by californian on Jan 14, 2006 10:09:33 GMT -6
I have to disagree very strongly with the right not to incriminate yourself, if you are remaining silent purely not to inciminate youself, then by default you are guilty. If it is an obligation of every citizen to testify against those who break the law, then it should also be an obligation of every citizen to answer as to their actions when accused. While I appreciate that in the past people have been tortured to get "the truth", however if all that is required is an answer to questions, this is hardly torture. We are asking here for nothing more than is requested of the witnesses in a case. Remember here that a rape victim has no choice about appearing in the witness box despite the rape victim being the victim of a crime he/she would never want to discuss in public. Why therefore do we spare the accused. I am surprised that this isnt something that people are looking to change, but then again, maybe its just me missing the point. [/b] I suggest that the U.S. Constitution, Amendment the Fifth, would be a good place to start reading. The right not to incriminate oneself with one's own testimony was one of the rights British subjects were granted by the Magna Carta (1215). Just out of curiosity, may I ask if you're an American, and if so, your age?
|
|