undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdroithomme7y ago0 comments

> no one is "forcing" her to do anything. She doesn't want to talk, so she won't! You always have a choice.

Pedantically true, yes. If I hold a gun to the witnesses head and demand they testify or I will pull the trigger, no one is "forcing" them to do anything. They have the choice to refuse to testify and suffer the consequences.

It's the same with Manning. She has the "choice" to be thrown in prison because she refuses. Usually doing something under threat of deprivation of live or liberty is legally considered being forced to do something.

I can rob a bank at gunpoint and then argue that the bank "chose" to give me the money, since they always had the option to refuse, just as you are arguing here that Manning has the "choice" to testify. When there is a threat of deprivation of life or liberty, that is not considered a free choice. It's coerced, under duress, also known as forced.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

wespiser_20187y ago

Testifying against a friend or community member is not coercion if people ascribe negative outcomes to not just their well-being, but to the well-being of their friends.

For instance, my testimony gets me out of jail, but it helps put my friend in jail: the degree my testimony impacts that sentence, and the sentence itself, have to be factors in the decision.

Thus, and without getting into Manning's thought process, I wouldn't be surprised if she believes the negative effects (real or perceived) of her testimony outweigh the stay in jail.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse