If somebody pleads the 5th, do you automatically assume GUILTY!!!

[vi edit]

???

Just curious. After seeing the Enron and Worldcom execs pleading the 5th on every question fired their way except for "what is your name", I just can't help but think these guys are guiltyier than sh!t.

your thoughts?

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
???

Just curious. After seeing the Enron and Worldcom execs pleading the 5th on every question fired their way except for "what is your name", I just can't help but think these guys are guiltyier than sh!t.

your thoughts?

That is what I feel, yes. If you pleasd the 5th you look bad as hell IMHO. Take it like a man!

 

[pulse8]

I do.

If they were innocent, they'd have no problems telling the investigators anything they wanted.

 

[Linflas]

I assumed they were guilty the moment it was revealed how they cooked the books. My assuming they are guilty is different than what my duty would be if I was on a jury and the case was presented to me. Then I should be able to set aside my predjudices and decide the case based on whether the prosecution met its burden of proof. As for congress I find the "bread and circus" antics of most congressional committees to be repugnent. It is all about mugging for the cameras and scoring political points rather than determing what actually took place.

 

[GhettoFob]

yep GUILTY!

 

[singh]

NO

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Sadly, yes. But the 5th Amendment doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to be perceived as innocent, it simply means that you're not required to demonstrate the contrary.

Presumption of innocence is only an issue for jurors.

 

[Brutuskend]

I would assume so.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

It certainly does not look good for a jury.

The purpose of the 5th Amendment is to protect you from self-incrimination... to force the state that seeks to deprive you of your civil liberties to prove you guilty by a reasonable doubt. You don't have to speak at all. (You really should not if you can avoid it.) I would also argue that most accused people should never take the stand regardless of their guilt or innocence... too many things can go wrong... a question could be misunderstood, or there may simply be a question that there is not a good answer to.

The reason that the Enron and Worldcom execs are pleading the 5th before Congress is because they don't want to give the US Attorney working on their indictment any ammunition. A statement could really come back to haunt them in a criminal trial, even though it was self-serving at the time.

This whole Congressional dog and pony show is just that... a show... put on for our collective amusement.

The stakes get higher for them at the next level. They are saving their ass before Congress...

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Possibly, but not absolutely. I think they have to answer all the questions with that response, seems like I recall hearing on CourtTV that the person cannot select some answers to answer in full and to take the 5th on others.

 

[vi edit]

I know that I'm not *SUPPOSED* to assume that they are guilty, but it's tough to have any compassion when you here something like the following:

Congress goon: "Mr. Worldcom exec, you have cost the jobs of 16,000 employees, and the retirements of hundreds of thousands more, do you sleep well at night?"

Worldcom exec: "Under the advisment of my attorney, I am fulfilling my consitutional rights and pleading the 5th amendment"

BLEH!

 

[JellyBaby]

Mr. Worldcom exec, you have cost the jobs of 16,000 employees, and the retirements of hundreds of thousands more, do you sleep well at night?

What do you expect there? That question, no matter how it's answered, can only imply one thing: despicable character. Which is why it was asked and why he used the 5th.

 

[bozo1]

As was said, it's all grandstanding. Anyone that is being investigated is really stupid not to take the fifth.

If Congress really wanted some answers, they'd grant immunity to some of them. Not the top dogs but someone high enough to actually know something. Once immunity is granted, you can't take the 5th anymore. Failure to answer is contempt and you can be put in jail until you comply.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

These Congress a-holes ask such ridiculous questions that there is no way in hell I would ever answer a one.

This is political grandstanding to make a select group of "representatives" look like they are doing a damn good job... all for you - the idiot voter.

Sorry - I hope that my frustration with the government does not show to much

 

[glenn1]

Just curious. After seeing the Enron and Worldcom execs pleading the 5th on every question fired their way except for "what is your name", I just can't help but think these guys are guiltyier than sh!t.

Bernie Ebbers (former WorldCom CEO) ain't Ollie North, there ain't any way he'd be able to get away with turning the hearings around on the congressional oversight committee the same way. Very few people would be able to pull that off, so pleading the 5th was probably the lesser of two evils.

Better to plead the 5th and be thought of as guilty, rather than open your mouth and remove any doubt of it.

 

[kranky]

I know you aren't supposed to draw conclusions from someone exercising their 5th Amendment rights, but I also assume they are guilty. I guess that's because people who can answer the questions without incriminating themselves just answer the questions.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: pulse8
I do. If they were innocent, they'd have no problems telling the investigators anything they wanted.

Indeed, as do I. But in a court during a federal offense (the only time/place they can plead the 5th), proof is required for them to be found guilty and pleading the 5th doesn't provide any proof. Hense the whole reason for the 5th.

nik

 

[CubicZirconia]

I do.

 

[Supermercado]

Yeah, I do. If they're not going to answer a question that could potentially incriminate them, that's just about as bad as answering the question and actually incriminating yourself. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[vi edit]

It really just comes down to the human psych. I guess if somebody denies something without saying they didn't actually do it, then I'm immediately suspicious.

It's not a trait that I'm proud of, but's it's a human assumption none the less.

 

[Amused]

Yes! Damn them for having Constitutional rights! How dare they take advantage of the Fifth Amendment like that! Don't they know it only applies when not applied?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Yes! Damn them for having Constitutional rights! How dare they take advantage of the Fifth Amendment like that! Don't they know it only applies when not applied?

I move to make logic based conclusions unconsitutional

 

[DigDug]

Yes! Damn them for having Constitutional rights! How dare they take advantage of the Fifth Amendment like that! Don't they know it only applies when not applied?

What's the point of this sarcasm?


You can have all the constitutional rights you want - juries are notorious for disregarding jury instructions anyway. Pleading the 5th here is an effective admission of guilt.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Yes - why would you not answer the question

 

[bozo1]

Prosecutors have a nasty habit of turning your words around to try to confuse you thus making you look bad in front of a jury, even if you are telling the truth. TV news has a nasty habit of taking things out of context and only airing the bits and pieces they want to air.

While these guys may be guilty as sin, I just see it as smart legal advice to not answer any questions in such a forum.