>This isn’t a “gap in the law” at all: it’s protection against incriminating yourself.
So someones life should be ruined if you falsely accuse them simply because you shouldnt be allowed to incriminate yourself?
So someones life should be ruined if you falsely accuse them simply because you shouldnt be allowed to incriminate yourself?
Imagine if the person raped committed a different crime, unrelated to the rape, for which there was evidence of that on their phone.
In order to report the rape, they have to self incriminate themself for that crime as well? In this scenario any drug user, prostitute or other criminal has no protection from the law against being raped.
The issue is that people don't always know what information is relevant / they think stuff is too minor to mention.
You wouldn't go to a doctors appointment and then say my body is private you cant examine me and expect them to go off just the info you provide. If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't say er no thanks that's too private. You assume he has a good medical reason that he wants to do that and you let him confirm that you are healthy.
If you don't want your doctor to stick his finger up your butt, then that's exactly what you do. They don't have a right to finger your prostate, even though it might be beneficial to you.
If you don't want a medical procedure, even if it would be beneficial to you, you can refuse it. It is your right (at least in the US).
Kinda hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime.....
You don’t feel sympathy for sex workers, who in many places are unable to report being assaulted?
Your example is having something you stole stolen from you. That’s not the same as doing something illegal, and having a completely different crime done to you. “I was jaywalking, and someone robbed me when i arrived on the other side of the street”. I can’t report it because I would have to explain why I was in the middle of the street without having walked past the shops on that side.
I do, but then again, I don't consider sex workers criminals.
I thought we were discussing why society would want to incentivize (or at least not disincentive) reporting a crime, even if the reporter is themselves a criminal. The idea is to eliminate at least one act of criminality instead of none.
You’re argument seems to be: people who commit crimes shouldn’t expect protection under the law from other crimes. And when it was pointed out that not all crimes are equal, your reply is “but I don’t consider some of those things as crimes.”
The parent answered "You don’t feel sympathy for sex workers, who in many places are unable to report being assaulted?" -- as if that category was what the grantparent meant by "criminals".
It was obvious to me that this was not what the grandparent meant, and I chimed in to say that one can still find it "hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime" while still feeling sorry for a prostitute that can't report a rape.
It's easy to speak of "criminals" casually without including (into your concept of them) large categories of people that the law might still consider "criminals" (eg. prostitute, a teen that did some weed, a guy who hacked into a website for fun, somebody who gasp pirated some music, etc.).
That's orthogonal to what protection criminals should get or not. I can support the rights of a criminal (to a fair trial etc) without feeling sorry for them. I don't find feeling "sorry" necessary to support people's rights.
>You’re argument seems to be: people who commit crimes shouldn’t expect protection under the law from other crimes.
No, my comment meant to convey (a) that the grandparent's point that "Kinda hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime" is not some bizarre cruel statement, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with some special cases of legally considered "criminals" that are more like victims themselves like a prostitute.
What I didn't like was the uncharitable interpretation of the grandparent's comment.
Official definitions (like etymologies) are not really relevant to actual language (though they are relevant to court).
It's the typical intended use / understanding of a term (as used casually), which can even change between contexts even when used by the same person, that matters.
Yeah, so a second crime was solved too. That's bad because?
Could this serve as an incentive for less crime?
Frivolity aside, "raping criminals" doesn't seem a very viable endeavor. They are, you know, criminals to begin with, and they, or their criminal friends, can perhaps do your head in...
(Plus, blackmailing a criminal with evidence of their crime, sometimes for sex too, has happened since time immemorial - even between corrupt policemen and criminals-, it's not something uniquely enabled by mobile phones).
Was this sarcasm, or are you actually suggesting that criminals should fear extrajudicial "justice" of having crimes committed against them and being unable to report them?
Yeah, it does mean crime becomes carte blanche to do against criminals of a certain caliber. But that's the consequence of deciding to live one's life outside the law.
If the crimes discussed on the phone are trivia in relation to rape (e.g. shop lifting, drug use) I highly doubt the police would bother prosecuting those crimes. How many minors who were raped while.drunk got charged with consu ing alcohol underage? I don't know of any, and the outrage over doing so would be immense.