A

Really?

Yes. I can’t be compelled to give anything that is in my head that might incriminate me (5th amendment), but that doesn’t carry over to my body. For example, I can be compelled to provide DNA samples.

Gotcha. Now it makes sense.

Still though why is that unbelievable?

Bc your not a slave maybe?

It’s basically the difference bn the 4th amendment (allows for search & seizure w probable cause & a warrant) & the 5th amendment which has no exception to not requiring self-incrimination. It makes sense legally, though not really morally.

I understand the legal difference, having successfully applied many times for production of fingerprints to unlock phones among other things. I’m saying if there is PC that evidence of a crime is on a phone, where is the moral depravity in compelling a fingerprint to unlock?

Often we identify with the target of the order. As a thought experiment consider this (actual case): victim of forcible anal and vaginal sexual assault claims perpetrator filmed with iPhone. Defendant claims mistaken identity. D printed and DNA swabbed.

Interesting, so the wording of the 5th "(No Person)..shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," (women can be compelled) My finger *IS* me. What in world can they mean? Is it someone else's finger?

The woman statement is imbecilic. As for the rest, as a point of law, it’s under search & seizure not self-incrimination. Feel free to try to argue that non-sentient parts of your body can be a witness

Could be imbecilic, but last i looked, the pronoun was gender specific. Moving along, If your body is not you, what is you? Is there a scientific concensus? I do understand this is law, and all academic, and I'm utterly wrong. Just trying to sort the logic. Thnx

No it isn’t historically. The male pronoun is historically used in gender neutral contexts as well. As for the rest, constitutional law, not metaphysical philosophy, is what’s relevant.

As for neuroscientific consensus, that is actually one of the few parts of this conversation that actually fall under my expertise. In general, mind-brain/body dualism is considered ascientific, though there are some interesting borderline hypotheses.

I get that 'this' is law, I really just wonder what legal logic was used to say a physical person isn't a person, only the pretty poorly, if at all, defined 'consciousness' is. Anyway, again, thanks.

The question is what happens if we actually get good enough neuroscience tech to read minds (don’t worry, we’re somewhere between many decades & infinity from that point rn)? Is that a 4th or 5th amendment issue? It’s the extreme case of your point... not entirely unfair.

Ha! :) that exact scenario was put to my 8th grade civics class. Even had a 16mm soundie movie dramatizing it. Point of the lesson? 5th trumps the state's desire for your self incrimination.