U.S. Justice System more just?

[bobnoorduyn]

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.

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]

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 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.

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]

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]

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]

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. :smile:

 

[wulfie68]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. :lol:

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I believe you are when there is involvement with a vehicle. :smile:

Any activity you are engaged in that requires a permit or license is fair game, providing a false identity is an offense. Many bicycle helmet, (or if you live in NS, scooter, heelie, skateboard, inline skate, helmet) offenses are not prosecuted because people do prvide false names, the activity requires no license therefore you need not carry any identification at all. That's probably why jay walking offenses are usually only prosecuted when the offender is hit by a vehicle causing property damage and/or personal injury, normally to themselves.

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

Not necessarily, it all depends on why you are asked, and why you give a false name. You may have a nick name or street name. A late uncle of mine who retired as an inspector with the OPP went by a different name than his birth name and we didn't find out his real name until his death certificate was applied for. You may give a false name to obstruct justice or avoid prosecution, or just because its none of their business. One has consequenses, the other not so likely.

 

[ironsides]

Obstructing Justice it could be serious.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

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.

The laws are based on Common Law but the systems and processes vary greatly. The British system is painful and slow, and expensive, you have to hire a solicitor who acts as your legal advisor, and then hires a barrister who pleads your case to the court, but you still have to pay both. Canada's system is better in that the solicitor you hire may also act as your barrister in court. You know the person who is going to present your case and he or she is much more in tune with you than a barrister would be under the British system. In that sense, our system of defense is probably pretty close to that of the US. One effective defense tool common to us and the US is changing venue, but a better one which I don't know if it is available in the US, is "judge shopping", it's not proper, but still legal. It is illegal for the Crown to do it, they tried once while prosecuting an NS politician and got rightly spanked.

The major difference is in the process for prosecution. Elected judges and D.A.'s have to be faithful to the law while answering to public pressure, in other words, they must perform a balancing act. It begins with the police who have to make the arrests, the prosecution has to get a conviction at any cost, and a judge who wants to get re-elected. One nasty import from the US is the victim impact statement. Sorry, feelings have no business in Courts of Law when the case is the Crown or any county or state vs. the accused. I'll elaborate later if you wish.

Appointed judges and prosecutors don't have the public pressure to sway their decisions, but they are still somewhat beholden to their political masters, and their own morals and prejudices. Though their employment isn't in jeopardy, and it doesn't happen often, they can still be sent to the judicial city of Nod if their judgement or actions are really out in left field. But there is still influence, Liberal governments appoint liberals, Conservative governments do likewise for their own, but both only to the point it is obvious but not blatant.

Canadian justice, while not perfect, or good for that matter, is at least slow and deliberate, the US seems to like to exact justice at lightning speed. Though both systems still strive for convitions, I think ours is better, and I would rather 100 guilty be set free than one be convicted wrongfully.

 

[Bar Sinister]

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.

You are splitting hairs. The rights did not exist and government action brought them into being. No government action - no rights, in spite of the fact that they were fought for over decades. The fact that the Charter does not include rights you think are important does not take away from the rights it did grant.

 

[JLM]

You are splitting hairs. The rights did not exist and government action brought them into being. No government action - no rights, in spite of the fact that they were fought for over decades. The fact that the Charter does not include rights you think are important does not take away from the rights it did grant.

The Charter is a farce and its author should have been tarred and feathered. :lol:

 

[Ron in Regina]

Any activity you are engaged in that requires a permit or license is fair game, providing a false identity is an offense. Many bicycle helmet, (or if you live in NS, scooter, heelie, skateboard, inline skate, helmet) offenses are not prosecuted because people do prvide false names, the activity requires no license therefore you need not carry any identification at all. That's probably why jay walking offenses are usually only prosecuted when the offender is hit by a vehicle causing property damage and/or personal injury, normally to themselves.

This isn't true here with respect to bicycles. The Highway Traffic Act states that
a bicycle is a vehicle, thus you have to (in theory) carry I.D. when operating one.
This is rarely enforced, as are most of the other rules governing the operation
of a bicycle being a vehicle. Why? I really don't know, but that's the way it is.

 

[YukonJack]

"U.S. Justice System more just?"

Hard to say, but I would prefer judges who are elected, because they might replace some miserable judicial failures.

I would prefer judges who are thoroughly vetted for profiency, rather than those who were faithful water carriers of an autocratic Prime Minister.

 

[TenPenny]

I would prefer judges who are thoroughly vetted for profiency

That certainly rules out elected judges.

 

[ironsides]

Both American and Canadian laws were based upon British common law, just that Canada was a few years behind giving everyone (1924 Native Americans) the right to vote. We both have penalties for various crimes, yes including the death penalty (there are many appeals before it is carried out, could last another 10-15 years) which is much better than releasing or having some vicious killer or drug dealer eligible for parole after 25 years or so. Yes, the U.S. may convict faster, but making more wrongful convictions, I don't think so.

That certainly rules out elected judges.

Appointed judges also.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

This isn't true here with respect to bicycles. The Highway Traffic Act states that
a bicycle is a vehicle, thus you have to (in theory) carry I.D. when operating one.
This is rarely enforced, as are most of the other rules governing the operation
of a bicycle being a vehicle. Why? I really don't know, but that's the way it is.

You might want to carry I.D. in case of an accident, but just because a bicycle is considered a vehicle there is no legal imperitve to carry it. There was no legal imperitive to carry I.D. while boating either, until they came out with the reqirement for an operator's card, that's the only way they can legally identify you to lay charges if you are drinking, or any other infractions while boating. Why else do you think they came out with it? It has nothing to do with competence. I was briefly detained by police for not having I.D. while cycling once and had to threaten legal action before they let me on my way. They know the law, but think the rest of us don't.

The last thing we need in a free country is for the authorities to have free reign to demand "Дай мне ваши документы товарищ", or "Give me your papers comrade". (We may have to start practising how to recognise it when we hear it, "Dai mnye vashi dokoomentye tovareesh").