The Glade 4.0

If the man was apprehended while in the commision of a real property crime, then the law is serving it's just ends by detaining him. It's a just function.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Why not? "As you refuse to identify yourself, this court, its records, and any correctional facility in which you reside will know you as Francis Schmuckelberger until such time as more accurate information is obtained. Mr. Schmuckelberger, you are sentenced to time served. Please collect your belongings and do not find yourself in my court again."

_________________

Detaining, trying, and (if necessary) incarcerating for a span of time commensurate with the crime(s). I am not arguing that the person in question is undeserving of any captivity. I am saying that a line has been crossed.

_________________

Does the state have any just functions in your opinion?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

So? So what? That's his own damn fault. Should refusla to identify yourself be a free ticket to "time served"?

No. It shouldn't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Certainly. And those just functions are few, and restricted.


Should refusal to identify yourself be a ticket to additional incarceration beyond that required by the crimes you are actually charged with?

No. It shouldn't.

_________________

Part of the punishment metered out by our system of justice is still shame based. All convictions are a matter of public record. The purpose of this is correctional. Justice is not served if the person convicted does not have to a) accept public scrutiny for his actions, and b) face his accuser in a court of law. How can one be shamed if their identity is not known to the public? How can a meeting of that sort occur if one of the participants is unknown?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm surprised at some of those willing to give the police carte blanche power to detain someone indefinitely until the police have determined they have properly identified the person in question.

The courts handing down sentences and verdicts on persons for whom they don't know the exact name is not something that has never occurred before.

This is not a case of the police being unable to properly identify the man. This is a matter of being able to identify the man at all. This man was not picked up at random. This man was arrested during the commission of a property crime. The most effective part of our justice system in reforming those whom have an honest chance of not committing further crimes is shame based. Our justice cannot be metered out of this is prevented from happening by a simple refusal to participate in the just functions of the process. The man isn't being detained, he is detaining himself. Furthermore, this is not carte blanche power, it is a very specific, very narrowly defined power.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I do prefer the rule of law.

Not letting those we task with enforcing the law do their job only benefits the criminal element.

SCOTUS precedence tends to trump everything else in the law books. Since SCOTUS, when presented with a similar situation made that ruling, took that interpretation, that interpretation becomes effectively the law in the country. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that by asking for his name and identification they are following the law.

Is it a just law? Why isn't it? What constitutional right does it violate? I don't think identifying yourself breaks the right to not incriminate yourself? You might make an argument for free speech, but I don't think it applies here.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Mind boggling....

Actually, the shame and negative stigma of a crime going on your permanent record is not our most effective means of reforming and rehabilitating criminals, and is in fact quite the opposite. The reluctance or refusal of employers to hire someone with a crime on their record leads them right back into committing the same sort of crimes. Rehabilitation of a criminal is a two-sided process. It's not enough that the criminal make an honest effort to turn their life around. Society also has accept that they wish to be rehabilitated to let them do it. Attaching the crime to some sort of permanent record in order to shame the perpetrator is rather the opposite of accepting a criminal's desire to be rehabilitated.

Instead, what it accomplishes is to stigmatize the criminal as a naughty bad person. The result is to label the criminal as less than a civilized human being fit for decent society. "No, you can't work here! You are a thief. You can't live here! You are a child molester." The purpose is to push criminals away and prevent them from rejoining society; to ensure that criminals remain criminals. That way society has something to fear, and a reason to need the police state.

The last thing any justice system wants is reformed criminals. If criminals could be reformed, what need would we have of prisons? What need would we have for police to protect us? Indeed, what need would we have for lords to rule over us?

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Yes, actually it should, for the reason I stated. Otherwise, it's a get-out-of-jail-free card on the question of what crimes, if any, you might have committed and what the sentences imposed might have been

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So the presumption is guilty until proven otherwise, in this case, via identification.

If someone is arrested for a minor offense such as this, pays their fine and serves the time, they are done.

What need would we have of people to complain about the situation in an attempt to appear insightful?

The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. People do not want to accept reformed felons because felons do not have a reliable history of reforming. It is possible to succeed with a felony record and live well, with the acceptance of others, but you have a high hill to climb because no one wants to be a victim of a recidivist.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So what is your true purpose in accurately determining his identity? Is it to ensure you don't overly punish a minor offender, or to ensure you don't release a major offender?

_________________

This. They are basically asking him to prove he's not wanted for something else. That's BULLSHIT.

How about, to ensure he's actually a citizen in the first place? If he does not establish his identity, how do we know he has a right to remain in this country? And why would we only be concerned about punishing major offenders? If he's a minor offender, and could have gotten out of jail sooner by admitting who he was, it's his own damn fault.

Your identity is not an incriminating fact. A person of a particular identity has been charged or convicted of a committed a crime. Admitting that you, the physical body present, is the holder of the identity, only shows whether the correct body is in custody for trial or punishment. Admitting that you are, in fact, the holder of the identity in question, does nothing to establish whether or not the identity in question is guilty.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ooooo! Maybe he's a SPY!!!

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

What, you suspect he may be an illegal Canadian? So you admit you're just basically looking for any evidence of other wrongdoing beyond what you've apprehended the man for? If all you've got him on is minor offenses, then punish him appropriately. But refusal to identify himself, while it may be offensive to the law enforcement community, is not an offense against society.

If you've caught somebody in the commission of a crime, and you don't actually know that you've got the right person, it sounds like you may be in the wrong line of work.

_________________

You think Canadians never come into this country illegally? Oh, no, that's only dirty Mexicans that do that.

Don't give me this ****. It has nothing to do with whether refusing to identify yourself is an offense. The fact that he refuses to identify himself gives reasonable cause to believe he is either A) convicted of an offense, B) fears conviction for an offense of which he knows himself guilty or C) is in this country illegally. The criminal justice system is intended to allow people to be tried and convicted or acquitted based on the facts, not to avoid the consequences by hiding their identity. If he refuses to provide the information that allows the criminal justice process to proceed, his being held is a mere administrative action which he has the power to remedy any time he chooses. His confinement is his own making and his own choice.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The police have to know your name before they can fine you $50 and make you pick up the garbage in the snow. Remember, we have to be able to make you sit on the Group W bench with the mother-stabbers and father-rapers.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Who gives a rat's ***? I notice you're employed in Texas, not Minnesota.

So indeed, you are presuming him guilty of other offenses.

_________________

So, what if he gives a name that can't be validated? He has no ID on him. If he says his name is Joseph Allen Frederickson III and that name doesn't pop up in any criminal databases, etc.. do you let him go then? Last I checked there is no law requiring one to carry ID with them.

What exactly are you wanting to check? If he doesn't show up in a criminal database, what then? Check with the IRS and make sure he's paid his taxes? Make him provide a birth certificate? Or some other proof of citizenship?

Anyway, it's all moot now.

He's been identified.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... soner.html