I doubt it would, though I know police officers will use it for intimidation. This whole, privacy is unnecessary if I don't have anything to hide is hard for me to wrap my mind around. To me, privacy is important just because it is. To me, if I'm innocent and not doing anything wrong, the police don't need to know my name (and should probably be trying to solve crimes. Is it a coincidence that during the time when the Dallas Police are harrassing minorities with 'failure to ID', the crime rate has been going up in Dallas?). So why should they have the right to demand it? Why should it err on the side of the government instead of on the side of the people?
Oh, and not to mention, identifying yourself could lead to being put on watch lists and whatnot. I mean, if the police go around making everyone at a protest rally show their IDs, who knows what will be done with that list. Perhaps the New York Police Commissioner should require that everyone who attends the Republican National Convention this summer show ID and be subject to a police background check before enterting the convention. It used to be that Republicans hated this big government intrusion sort-of thing. Gun registration is a travesty, but allowing the police to set up ID checkpoints and check everyone's papers when they aren't doing anything wrong? That's perfectly okay.
Let's use an example of a man not involved in a crime but at the scene. The police ask him for his name. It goes in a police report. Later the man is falsely accused of a crime. His name is found in an old police report and brought out to show he has dubious character or hangs around with known criminals etc. I'm not saying that will happen, but why should somebody's name be dragged around in police reports when they did nothing.
Agreed that the slippery leads to the pig sty. I just think there are some situations where it is unreasonable not to be cooperative in self-identification. It's hard to know what to do with slippery slopes looming. They're everywhere...
Another good post, mrpaige. I just don't get it. The GOP hates deficits, but they rack up record ones. They claim to be the champions of personal freedoms, but they constantly support their erosion. They champion states rights, but chip away at them. Hypocrisy is not limited to the GOP, but this is getting beyond rediculous. It's getting dangerous. (lots of things make me feel good, giddy... this ain't one of them! )
Giving self incriminating testimony very well could lead to the imprisonment of an innocent person. For one thing, a lawyer can trick someone into saying something that incriminates them. For another, self-incriminating testimony could be used as circumstantial evidence to build a case against someone who is innocent. Under no circumstance that I have seen will providing your name to a police officer lead to your imprisonment. That is why it is irrelevent.
No, it's not irrelevant under the (extraconstiutional) framework you appear to be arguing, but let's table that for now. I'll give you another example then so you and giddyup won't get sidetracked : Under what circumstances is allowing the police to search your car without a search warrant going to send an innocent person to jail? Let's get rid of the 4th amendment.
One of the attorneys I'm working with on a corporate litigation case was missing yesterday. It turns out that he is one of the representatives from his firm working on this case, so he was in DC waiting for the decision. We were wrapped up quite a bit in our own litigation issues, but apparently one of the primary arguments presented here was the slippery slope argument. There was concern that this would create a precedent for National ID cards. His firm was actually representing the interests of homeless people on this issue. I wish we had more time to discuss it, because it was interesting... oh and BTW, how does something like this that gets started at a local level somehow become the responsibility of the Bush administration? there are actually things that happen in this country that do not relate to Bushie.
That sounds intriguing, TL. As for Bushie, if he gets reelected, he'll no doubt be making one or more appointments to the Court. That scares the hell out of me.
