
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 . .(.??
)

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".

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.

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.

Exactly. The absolute best thing is to keep quiet. Don't answer any questions.
But people have a hard time doing that.

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.

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.

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.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
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...

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.

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 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.

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.