Waiving rights is weird. It’s well understood that you can’t waive your right not to be a slave, for example. Why should you be able to waive any right? The 6th amendment doesn’t say “unless the accused doesn’t want it.”

▲

jjk166 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can waive your right not to be a slave, but no one can gain the right to legally own slaves. The 13th amendment doesn't guarantee the rights of people to live free, it bans the practice of slavery. If you find someone living in slavery you don't arrest them for being a slave, you arrest the person who enslaved them. If someone asks you to do something illegal for them, you are obliged to say no; even if they are the only person directly impacted and they insist they want it, it is not in your authority to grant the request.

You can choose not to exercise any right, that's what makes it a right. Freedom of religion does not imply an obligation to practice religion, freedom of speech does not compel speech, right to bear arms does not imply an obligation to bear arms, etc. Your right to a swift and speedy trial is likewise something you can choose not to exercise. Things would be different if the law was all trials must be swift and speedy.

	▲	wat10000 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		By that logic, you can waive the right to a speedy trial, but it would be illegal for the state to try you in a non-speedy fashion.

▲

cogman10 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because it's presumably beneficial. It gives your lawyers extra time to prepare for the case or to potentially settle on more favorable terms.

▲

walletdrainer 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you have a right to both a fair trial and a speedy trial, there should be no trial that does not provide both.

	▲	mikkupikku 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The speed which enables the most fair outcome overall is subject to interpretation. More time to prepare your case is probably good, but the longer the process drags out, the greater portion of your finite life you've lost to the process. Weighing these two factors, with all the other various factors, can't be done objectively for a generalized case that can apply to all real cases, hence giving the accused some amount of say over the matter.

▲

wat10000 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Waiving your right not to be a slave could be beneficial too.

▲

cogman10 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You can become someone's slave if you really want to. The only part that can't be enforced is you can't be coerced to stay.

Plenty of cults have slaves in the US. But because the are willing, nothing is done about it.

▲

ahhhhnoooo 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Heck, plenty of us companies still rely on slave labor. Look at Aramark's use of prisoners, for example.

	▲	wat10000 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's an explicit carveout in the Constitution allowing slavery as punishment for a crime, not someone waiving their rights.

▲

wat10000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This reminds me of Futurama:

"You know the worst thing about being a slave? They make you work, but they don't pay you or let you go."

"That's the only thing about being a slave!"

So yeah, you can legally be a slave as long as you leave out the one part that makes it slavery.