Then he should be sentenced on the other evidence anyway. The failure to provide additional incriminating evidence could be used as an aggravating circumstance in the ruling, not as a separate crime with infinite detainment.

(edit: replaced punishment with detainment, it's probably more neutral)

>Then he should be sentenced on the other evidence anyway

Yes, probably. I'm not really convinced that this isn't a violation of the fifth amendment, but I'm not a lawyer.

I suspect a jury would find him guilty anyway, and the fact that he refuses to decrypt his hard drive will likely not help his chances of convincing a jury that he's innocent.

For the punishment to be infinite, wouldn't the courts at every level up to SCOTUS would have to agree to its reasonableness?

(Subtextually, I'm saying: the punishment isn't infinite.)

Why?

He's in possession of data deemed contraband, but apparently not linked to distribution. The police need to demonstrate possession and can do so when their search is complete.

The police did an investigation, obtained a warrant to search for the contraband and seized the hard drive. The defendant was ordered by the judge to decrypt the drive per the warrant, and refused to follow the order. He's in contempt of court, and he can get out of jail very easily -- by complying with the order.

Should this work in the same way when other "data" is in the possession of the accused? Say, a murder suspect is considered by the judge as knowing the location of the victims body, and by refusing to tell the court, the suspect is detained as being in contempt of court.

The murder suspect has the right to refuse to testify against himself. The interesting part here is that this poor fella doesn't face any charges right now, so he has no such right. This is what makes it possible for the judge to jail him.

Unless, of course, he actually has forgotten the password after 7 months+ of not using it.

Because we have the 5th amendment.

   nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

As I understand it, Miranda established that the 5th amendment applies to all interactions with law enforcement, not just answering questions in court. So they can search the hard drive all they want, but the constitution protects us from being required to disclose what's in our heads which, in this case, should include the password.

> As I understand it, Miranda established that the 5th amendment applies to all interactions with law enforcement, not just answering questions in court. So they can search the hard drive all they want, but the constitution protects us from being required to disclose what's in our heads which, in this case, should include the password.

The privilege against self-incrimination applies to any interaction which they introduce into evidence against you in a criminal case, or from which they derive information on which they then gather other evidence that is used against you in a criminal case.

It doesn't actually protect you against the police doing anything, or forcing you to provide information (other Constitutional provisions may, however), it just protects you against certain information being used against you in criminal court.

There's no criminal case right now, so the fifth amendment doesn't apply.

Miranda vs Arizona established that 5th amendment protections apply outside of a criminal case. That's why police have to read the Miranda warning when arresting someone. He's been arrested and read his Miranda rights and is invoking them.

> Miranda vs Arizona established that 5th amendment protections apply outside of a criminal case.

No, Miranda vs. Arizona set standards for how 5th amendment protections apply in a criminal case, and established remedies for violation of those protections in such case.

To be sentenced he would have to be charged, which he still isn't after 7 months...

It's not a punishment. It's being held in contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order. He holds the keys to his own freedom; he has to provide the password.

Detention is punishment for the offense of contempt.

>There is the constant narrative that the government is out to get us all.

And historically, from Jim Crow laws, to J.E. Hoover and McCarthy, and onwards to Snowden, this is wrong, because?

>And historically, from Jim Crow laws, to J.E. Hoover and McCarthy, and onwards to Snowden, this is wrong, because?

Most of the examples you gave are historical. Regarding Snowden: has anything been used against anyone? I'm not condoning the snooping, BTW.

I think when you compare the US government to the likes of Russia and China, you'll see that the US is really not "out to get you". Certainly in this case it's pretty obvious that the govt isn't out to get an innocent person. There is a lot of strong evidence already that he has been collecting child porn. That of course doesn't mean that illegal procedures should be used to obtain more evidence, but we shouldn't get hysterical about it and say that the govt is going to use this to frame innocent people.

>Most of the examples you gave are historical.

Historical doesn't mean "belonging to lore" or "ain't gonna happen again". It precisely means "this things happen". And I don't consider stuff from 40 and 60 and 80 years ago as "deep history", like it's the Roman times or something and now we're totally different. In some cases those that did or suffered those things are still alive. In others, their direct 1st-gen legacy (sons, proteges, people they mentored etc) still rule.

>I think when you compare the US government to the likes of Russia and China, you'll see that the US is really not "out to get you"

Not sure what this means. With 25% of the world's inmates in only 5% of the world's population, I'd say it's very much out to get a heck of a lot of its citizens. And in prison conditions that compared to places like Germany or Sweden are like third world dungeons. The only way not to see this is to conveniently consider all those people are somehow subhumans, or criminals who "deserve it" (then one has to wonder why in the US 10x more of the population "deserve" such a fate compared to those in the German or the French population).

Or maybe let's talk police shootings? One is much more probable to get shot in the US ('walking while black' et al) than most parts of the world, China and Russia don't even compare.

Or are those not part of the government, and those laws and that climate is not fostered by government policies and political demagogy?

> I think when you compare the US government to the likes of Russia and China, you'll see that the US is really not "out to get you".

Have you any evidence that the US Government has changed their modus operandi?

Programs like COINTELPRO weren't public knowledge until some time afterwards, ditto "rendition" of terrorism suspects for overseas torture. Snowden has demonstrated that your Government still engages in widespread illegal activity.

I'd say the only reason such abuse seem "historical" is that we're unaware of the abuses going on right now.

>I'd say the only reason such abuse seem "historical" is that we're unaware of the abuses going on right now.

That's my point. The US government may or may not be mildly abusing it's citizens by spying on them illegally, it's hard to know. Compare to Russia or China where it most certainly is vehemently abusing people it disagrees with.

Also, I think the rendition was only for non-citizens. The US doesn't really give much of a shit about you if you're not a US citizen.

Nope, it was for US citizens as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11...