Nobody should ever be compelled to testify. Even the defendant has the right to remain silent, and so also should any witness.
Witness testimony isn't even a net value. It's unreliable even when it isn't deliberately deceitful. Every time you remember something the memory changes and traces over it with the colors of your current mood and suspicions. Details you never saw are filled in by your imagination, while others are outright ignored. And deliberately paying attention only makes matters worse.
The further we go down this rabbithole the less I am the kind of specialist with experience who should be answering. I don't like answering where I haven't done my homework. At the top level, this is more easy, because it's about the principle. The witness is not on trial, they should have at least the same rights as the defendant who is. And the defendant can say "not talking," so the witness has to be able to too. We know any change will have growing pains around the edge cases that will have to be worked out, but in practice an attempt to dictate all the fiddly details a priori will fail because practice is not like on paper. On paper, communism works. My intuition is that there's very little that can be compelled from an unwilling living human which is of worth. If you were there and saw it, your hairs will be there to DNA test and answer better than you. If someone did you a favor, we can check bank records and credit cards and find it. If you saw it and say so, we still have to prove you aren't lying, so why are we bothering asking you? Just use the proof that you aren't lying in the first place. Nobody testified against their will about Pedo Island, but we still all know what went down. And a DNA test can't be intimidated by the mob into not testifying. I'd say... subpoena with witness, get them on the stand, but they can also plead the fifth. But they have to sit there and actually do it if they don't want to. That should cause minimal disruption.
How about court representation where someone can't be compelled to testify against their spouse?
Nobody should ever be compelled to testify. Even the defendant has the right to remain silent, and so also should any witness.
Witness testimony isn't even a net value. It's unreliable even when it isn't deliberately deceitful. Every time you remember something the memory changes and traces over it with the colors of your current mood and suspicions. Details you never saw are filled in by your imagination, while others are outright ignored. And deliberately paying attention only makes matters worse.
Fair enough. So would you be in favor of abolishing subpoenas for witness testimony entirely?
The further we go down this rabbithole the less I am the kind of specialist with experience who should be answering. I don't like answering where I haven't done my homework. At the top level, this is more easy, because it's about the principle. The witness is not on trial, they should have at least the same rights as the defendant who is. And the defendant can say "not talking," so the witness has to be able to too. We know any change will have growing pains around the edge cases that will have to be worked out, but in practice an attempt to dictate all the fiddly details a priori will fail because practice is not like on paper. On paper, communism works. My intuition is that there's very little that can be compelled from an unwilling living human which is of worth. If you were there and saw it, your hairs will be there to DNA test and answer better than you. If someone did you a favor, we can check bank records and credit cards and find it. If you saw it and say so, we still have to prove you aren't lying, so why are we bothering asking you? Just use the proof that you aren't lying in the first place. Nobody testified against their will about Pedo Island, but we still all know what went down. And a DNA test can't be intimidated by the mob into not testifying. I'd say... subpoena with witness, get them on the stand, but they can also plead the fifth. But they have to sit there and actually do it if they don't want to. That should cause minimal disruption.
All fair positions—I'm not trying to trip you up; I'm interested in how people propose we disentangle this mess.