Abstract
Hansen is a poorly reasoned opinion, representing a superficial approach to a difficult problem. The "[d]enial of access to a pertinent identifying trait can only weaken a system dedicated to the ascertainment of truth. The extreme logical extension of this case, which goes beyond the traditionally accepted meaning of the privilege, could substantially hinder criminal investigation and prosecution by excluding traditionally admissible evidence, thereby depriving the community of an important societal need. Extension of the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination beyond its purpose increases the protection of the guilty but alleviates no persecution of the innocent. Although pain and fear, or threats thereof, may affect the oral testimony of a suspect, no amount of brutality can change one's handwriting, the alcoholic content of one's blood, or one's fingerprints or physical features. Thus, application of the privilege beyond the scope of communicative or testimonial evidence protects the guilty, yet serves no legitimate purpose since it avoids no abusive violence, nor does it prevent one from being put in a position where one must admit guilt or give false testimony.
Recommended Citation
Young, Scott F.
(1981)
"Hansen v. Owens-Expansion of the
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
to Unknown Limits,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1981:
No.
2, Article 8.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1981/iss2/8