U.S. Justice System more just?


JLM
#1
I just heard on the news that if you are arrested in Canada, you have a right to call a lawyer ONCE before being questioned but aren't allowed to have a lawyer present while being questioned unlike your Miranda rights in the U.S.
 
GreenFish66
#2
No such thing as a justice system ..It's more a Legal system ..No matter what country your from .Unless you can afford a Good Liar, I mean Lawyer, have some close friends in high places, and a good grasp on all that mind numbing leagleese ..Then The U.S. model is better...Canada's legal system is better only when you gots no $Money$.....No 1 to call...When there's just No other Choice you are given but guilty..Who ya gonna call?..The Justice Supreme ?.Joe Brown , Judge Judy ?...Guilty Untill proven innocent...America has a better legal system than all other countries though ...More choice ..1. Lethal,.2.Gas..3..Electric..SOoooo ...I guess you could say "America" has a more "JUST" Legal system . .(.?? )
 
JLM
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by GreenFish66View Post

No such thing as a justice system ..It's more a Legal system ..No matter what country your from .Unless you can afford a Good Liar, I mean Lawyer, have some close friends in high places, and a good grasp on all that mind numbing leagleese ..Then The U.S. model is better...Canada's legal system is better only when you gots no $Money$.....No 1 to call...When there's just No other Choice you are given but guilty..Who ya gonna call?..The Justice Supreme ?.Joe Brown , Judge Judy ?...Guilty Untill proven innocent...America has a better legal system than all other countries though ...More choice ..1. Lethal,.2.Gas..3..Electric..SOoooo ...I guess you could say "America" has a more "JUST" Legal system . .(.?? )

And in some states shooting and hanging- very diplomatic.
 
GreenFish66
#4
Justice for the civilized ...Legal Death to the Vile, Barbaric, Animal Scum Bags..(.After their 1 phone call to a Lawyer of course..)
 
Nuggler
#5
You do have the right to a phone call to a shyster, then, the right to remain silent during torture. If you don't break during the fingernail pulling and the wires to the genitals, you can speak with a lawyer through your broken teeth, when the police officers are done with you. IF you can walk back ten miles through the snow, without shoes, and you have 50 cents for the pay phone at the local Macs....................IF they let you in..............cause you look like a homeless person what with no shoes an all........and it bein the day before Christmas.
 
JLM
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by GreenFish66View Post

Justice for the civilized ...Legal Death to the Vile, Barbaric, Animal Scum Bags..(.After their 1 phone call to a Lawyer of course..)

Yep, 10 to 20 years after the phone call.
 
YukonJack
#7
Lots of lawyer basing here.

What will any of you do when you REALLY need one?
 
JLM
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Lots of lawyer basing here.

What will any of you do when you REALLY need one?

Did you mean lawyer "bashing"? I have no problems with lawyers helping people who really need it? What I have a problem is lawyers who look for loop holes to get slime acquitted.
 
YukonJack
+1
#9
Yeah, JLM, in my haste to make my point, I DID omit the "H".

And much as hate to admit it, the alleged "slime" deserves protection until they are convicted and proven to be "slime".

Sadly, some lawyers think and live by "the end justifies the means".
 
JLM
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Yeah, JLM, in my haste to make my point, I DID omit the "H".

And much as hate to admit it, the alleged "slime" deserves protection until they are convicted and proven to be "slime".

Sadly, some lawyers think and live by "the end justifies the means".

Right on. A lawyer's involvement should be limited to seeing the slime gets a fair trial and that should be the end of it.
 
bobnoorduyn
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I just heard on the news that if you are arrested in Canada, you have a right to call a lawyer ONCE before being questioned but aren't allowed to have a lawyer present while being questioned unlike your Miranda rights in the U.S.

It would be interesting to hear all the details about this because it doesn't sound right. You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay once arrested. Even still, you are not required to give evidence against yourself if you are a suspect, and if you aren't a suspect any evidence you give cannot be held against you. True, we don't have the same Miranda rights as the US, and as such even if you "lawyer up", the police can and probably will still question you until your counsel arrives. The right to remain silent is still in effect but most convictions come from those who fail to exercise this right.
 
ironsides
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Lots of lawyer basing here.

What will any of you do when you REALLY need one?

Call one, the best I can afford.
 
bobnoorduyn
+3
#13  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I have no problems with lawyers helping people who really need it? What I have a problem is lawyers who look for loop holes to get slime acquitted.

We all have the right to equal treatment under the law, once we start making laws or exceptions based on one's lot in life we are asking for trouble, (oops, I guess we've already started doing that, no wonder our justice system is whacky). Anyway, it is not always slime that gets aquitted by a "loophole". I've known cases where evidence was thrown out because a search warrant was invalid or a search was conducted beyond the scope of the warrant. In one bizarre case a nighttime raid was conducted on a rural home, it was a dynamic entry and all occupants, including children were held face down at gunpoint. During the search an old unregistered rifle was found and the homeowner was charged with firearms offences, even though the police had raided the wrong house. I don't know the eventual outcome but I heard the case got tossed and the rifle returned after much legal wrangling. Such gross violations of rights do happen to law abiding folk, laws that protect the criminals are there to also protect us, and sometimes it takes a lawyer to find where our rights have been violated.

Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Sadly, some lawyers think and live by "the end justifies the means".

If you ever end up on the wrong end of the law that is exactly the type of counsel you want. As I said previously, bad things can happen to good folk and the law doesn't recognise either good or bad folk, (that's why Justicia is blindfolded). Our justice system is not based on guilt or innocence but by who best presents their case. This was made abundantly clear by then Justice Minister Kim Campbell during a scrum when accosted by Joyce Milgaard, and broadcast by CBC and CTV.
 
JLM
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

We all have the right to equal treatment under the law, once we start making laws or exceptions based on one's lot in life we are asking for trouble, (oops, I guess we've already started doing that, no wonder our justice system is whacky). Anyway, it is not always slime that gets aquitted by a "loophole". I've known cases where evidence was thrown out because a search warrant was invalid or a search was conducted beyond the scope of the warrant. In one bizarre case a nighttime raid was conducted on a rural home, it was a dynamic entry and all occupants, including children were held face down at gunpoint. During the search an old unregistered rifle was found and the homeowner was charged with firearms offences, even though the police had raided the wrong house. I don't know the eventual outcome but I heard the case got tossed and the rifle returned after much legal wrangling. Such gross violations of rights do happen to law abiding folk, laws that protect the criminals are there to also protect us, and sometimes it takes a lawyer to find where our rights have been violated.

Your points are definitely valid.
 
TenPenny
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

It would be interesting to hear all the details about this because it doesn't sound right. You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay once arrested.

What the court said is that you do not have the right to insist that your lawyer be present during questioning. In the US, as soon as a suspect says 'I want my lawyer', the cops are not permitted to do any more questioning until the lawyer is there. Not the case in Canada, they can keep questioning you.
 
gerryh
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

What the court said is that you do not have the right to insist that your lawyer be present during questioning. In the US, as soon as a suspect says 'I want my lawyer', the cops are not permitted to do any more questioning until the lawyer is there. Not the case in Canada, they can keep questioning you.


and, as a suspect, you can just sit there with your mouth shut untill you see a lawyer.
 
JLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and, as a suspect, you can just sit there with your mouth shut untill you see a lawyer.

Yep, there is no way they (without breaking arms and legs) can make you talk.
 
TenPenny
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yep, there is no way they (without breaking arms and legs) can make you talk.

Exactly. The absolute best thing is to keep quiet. Don't answer any questions.

But people have a hard time doing that.
 
bobnoorduyn
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Exactly. The absolute best thing is to keep quiet. Don't answer any questions.

But people have a hard time doing that.

Usually it is the honest folks who have a hard time with that. They may have made an honest mistake and hope their cooperation will garner leniency. Police know this and work on it, their job is to get evidence leading to a conviction through confession, it makes everyone's job a lot easier, and may land an honest person in a world of hurt that can last a lifetime. Investigating officers don't care, they are just part of the justice machine and any conviction is a good conviction. Experienced criminals already know the drill, their lives are screwed anyway so they know to sit tight until their counsel can bargain down their punishment.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

What the court said is that you do not have the right to insist that your lawyer be present during questioning. In the US, as soon as a suspect says 'I want my lawyer', the cops are not permitted to do any more questioning until the lawyer is there. Not the case in Canada, they can keep questioning you.

Yes they can, and do, but they cannot restrict or deny your access to counsel without risking an aquittal, or worse, the Crown may refuse to proceed with charges at all, knowing a suspect's rights have been violated. Judges have severely chastized investigating officers and Crown Counsel in open court for such breaches of rights. It did happen to a friend of mine whose rights were violated, the arresting officer had the good sense not to show, the Crown counsel wasn't so lucky and didn't escape the judge's wrath. The judge suggested charges of unlawful confinement and malicious prosecution could be persued had my friend wished to proceed, but he declined.

Oh, and this was a case of a tennant trying to avoid paying rent by using false accusations, which both the Crown and police were suspected of having knowledge of.
 
damngrumpy
#20
It has nothing to do with honest folks will answer and the
guilty won't. In Canada you have a right to a lawyer if you
wait long enough and be quiet and respectful. Why be
respectful. So it can't be used against you later, that's why.
In the USA, you are entitled to all kinds of protection yet the
jails and prisons are full of innocent people and the rate is
probably higher in America than here.
The over all problem I see is that the courts have now
defined what rights you do and do not have. That is a bit
troubling because when nations start doing that they tend
to be on a path of taking some rights away within the over
all definition. I think we could be heading that way here, not
for the purpose of combating crime, but to bring them in line
with terrorism laws. We are leaning ever closer to combining
the two. They used to call that the War Measures Act if you
get what I mean.
 
bobnoorduyn
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

In the USA, you are entitled to all kinds of protection yet the
jails and prisons are full of innocent people and the rate is
probably higher in America than here.

I don't know what the rates would be nor how comparable they are. But the protections in the US are no where near what they are in Canada, don't believe what you see on TV. I don't know all the in's and out's of American law and justice, or very much for that matter, only the results. I know some, maybe all, District Attorneys are elected; I know some, if not all Judges are elected, except for the Supreme Court. With the judiciary and prosecution being accountable to the public comes the problem of being swayed by public pressure, instead of law. In our system all Crown Prosecutors and Judges are appointed, now comes the problem of them not being accountable to anyone; they may, and often do interpret law based on their own morals and prejudices.

In Canada there may be many charges laid, but by the time it goes to court only the ones that the Crown think have a chance of conviction stick. So a person may only be facing one to three charges. In the US they use a shotgun approach, the goal is a conviction on one of many charges. A person may be fighting 15 charges and will surely be convicted of one. Conviction at any cost, so long as it pleases the public's bloodlust. I'm not saying ours is a good system, but it is far and away better than the US.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The over all problem I see is that the courts have now
defined what rights you do and do not have. That is a bit
troubling because when nations start doing that they tend
to be on a path of taking some rights away within the over
all definition. I think we could be heading that way here, not
for the purpose of combating crime, but to bring them in line
with terrorism laws. We are leaning ever closer to combining
the two. They used to call that the War Measures Act if you
get what I mean.

The Charter defines what rights and freedoms we have, and I have always thought that common law freedoms were protected and codifying them would leave them open for the judiciary to define. You and I see this, (the Charter is a flimsy document anyway), but on the other hand, we were granted the Common Law right to own arms for defense in the 8th century, predating firearms. We no longer have this right, nor do they in the UK, the very place where it had been re-affirmed by various kings over the centuries. The US is fighting the same fight even though their founding fathers had the good sense to codify it in their Constitution. Know this, governments do not give you freedoms, they only take them away outright or turn them into privileges. The rights granted to some are merely obligations placed on others. Some things do have to be written down, but again are subject to interpretation, there's the rub, much interpretation is subjective and reflective of the current zietgeist.
 
Bar Sinister
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

I don't know what the rates would be nor how comparable they are. But the protections in the US are no where near what they are in Canada, don't believe what you see on TV. I don't know all the in's and out's of American law and justice, or very much for that matter, only the results. I know some, maybe all, District Attorneys are elected; I know some, if not all Judges are elected, except for the Supreme Court. With the judiciary and prosecution being accountable to the public comes the problem of being swayed by public pressure, instead of law. In our system all Crown Prosecutors and Judges are appointed, now comes the problem of them not being accountable to anyone; they may, and often do interpret law based on their own morals and prejudices.
In Canada there may be many charges laid, but by the time it goes to court only the ones that the Crown think have a chance of conviction stick. So a person may only be facing one to three charges. In the US they use a shotgun approach, the goal is a conviction on one of many charges. A person may be fighting 15 charges and will surely be convicted of one. Conviction at any cost, so long as it pleases the public's bloodlust. I'm not saying ours is a good system, but it is far and away better than the US.
The Charter defines what rights and freedoms we have, and I have always thought that common law freedoms were protected and codifying them would leave them open for the...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I agree with most of your post, but you should be aware that governments can indeed give freedoms. You only have to look at what rights were available to Canadians at the time of Confederation to realize that man rights have been added to those that Canadians started with, such as the right for Asians, Aboriginals, and women to vote; and rights involving homosexuals. All of these were put into place by Acts of Parliament or interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which of course, was an act of government.
 
bobnoorduyn
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

I agree with most of your post, but you should be aware that governments can indeed give freedoms. You only have to look at what rights were available to Canadians at the time of Confederation to realize that man rights have been added to those that Canadians started with, such as the right for Asians, Aboriginals, and women to vote; and rights involving homosexuals. All of these were put into place by Acts of Parliament or interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which of course, was an act of government.

The right for women and aboriginals to vote, among others, weren't given by the government's good will but were rights that were hard fought for. As for the Charter, it codified certain rights and freedoms, but in so doing it lacked the most important right, that is to own and enjoy private property, a Common Law right which was included in the 1960 Bill of Rights that the Charter superceded. This was an intentional omission. While one hand giveth, the other taketh away, without the right to own property a man, (or woman) is beholden to, and at the mercy of the state. If you think I'm talking through my hat, just look at the growing list of Federal and Provincial statutes that allow for the seizure of property including vehicles, vessels, and yes, homes, all without compensation. But again, even if the right to own and enjoy property is written it hasn't stopped the IRS from seizing homes in the US, but at least the value of the property is taken into consideration.
 
taxslave
#24
There is an article about this in todays G&M. It didn't say you couldn't have a lier present during interrogation, just that there is no obligation to provide you with one. It appears that this is in reference to questioning prior to being charged. You are not obligated to tell the police or the court anything, including your name.
 
JLM
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

There is an article about this in todays G&M. It didn't say you couldn't have a lier present during interrogation, just that there is no obligation to provide you with one. It appears that this is in reference to questioning prior to being charged. You are not obligated to tell the police or the court anything, including your name.

I believe you are when there is involvement with a vehicle.
 
wulfie68
+1
#26
I can't help but laugh at the people that want to claim there is some vast and great difference between our two systems just because they elect some judges and we appoint all of them, or because some states have the death penalty for some crimes. Show the studies so that we can compare the number of wrongful convictions if you're so positive the systems are so different. Sure some ofour rights may differ but the systems are fundamentally the same: based on English Common Law.
 
JLM
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

I can't help but laugh at the people that want to claim there is some vast and great difference between our two systems just because they elect some judges and we appoint all of them, or because some states have the death penalty for some crimes. Show the studies so that we can compare the number of wrongful convictions if you're so positive the systems are so different. Sure some ofour rights may differ but the systems are fundamentally the same: based on English Common Law.

Absolutely.
 
TenPenny
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

You are not obligated to tell the police or the court anything, including your name.

Giving a false name to a police officer is an offense.
 
taxslave
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Giving a false name to a police officer is an offense.

Yes they have a fancy name for it that escapes me but has to do with interference although it is not against the law to do business using a false name as long as you are not doing it for illegal purposes.
 
JLM
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Yes they have a fancy name for it that escapes me but has to do with interference although it is not against the law to do business using a false name as long as you are not doing it for illegal purposes.

Impostering.
 

Similar Threads

16
There is almost justice....
by lone wolf | Mar 15th, 2009
2
Justice tix?!
by davegrover | Mar 9th, 2008
85
What is wrong with our "justice" system?
by LittleRunningGag | Mar 10th, 2007
no new posts