In Canada, convicted criminals retains their right to vote.
After all, it's a citizen's right, not a privilege.
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
65 points (95.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27210 readers
1424 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
After all, it’s a citizen’s right, not a privilege.
If rights don't apply to everyone, then they are privileges.
I mean they do apply to everyone in Canada according to them.
This made me curious as to how many different legal systems there were. This wiki page has a global map of systems. Surprisingly, there isn’t a lot of variety. Most legal systems tend to be based on legislation (called civil law, originating in Rome), court rulings (called common law, originating in Britain), religious texts (called canon for christian, sharia for muslim, and halakha for jewish), or some mixture of those.
I mean yeah. Europe colonized most of the world, and while I hate to admit it they got a lot of stuff right with legal and political system.
those accused of crimes but not yet convicted.
People have rights.
Rights do not disappear just because you get accused.
In addition, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies, and it is only the judge who decides what is proven and what is not (this protects from prejudice at the police)
I don't know all your amendments, but there is a thing like your 5th. just stronger: The accused is free not to help the police in any way. He may say things or remain silent, he needs not to give them things, and they may not create any kind of disadvantage for him from that. Also the court must not interpret this against him. Also spouse and family are not required to help or testify.
It is Germany here.
As an American this is an interesting comment.
Traditional American understandings agree with the notion of innocent until proven guilty and that rights exist regardless of accusations. But here it is not a judge but a jury of your peers who decides the facts based on evidence shown to them. Here judges decide matters of law not fact.
(Unless you choose to have a judge rule on the facts (likely because you are probably unpopular in your community because of the nature of the accusations and you feel it'd be more fair for a judge to decide the fact in your eyes))..
American understandings agree with the notion of innocent until proven guilty and that rights exist regardless of accusations.
Well, from American movies you usually get the impression that all rights disappear suddenly as soon as the police comes into the picture.... This is really very, very different here. Even as an accused you can talk to policemen like to normal people in 99% of all cases.
Movies are works of fiction not law. In America if you choose to temporarily waive your right to silence and speak to police you may at any point reassert that right.
I couldn't blame cinematographers for attempting to tell a story. But they are artists not lawyers.
You may talk to police that way in America but any good lawyer will tell you not to because the strength of the fact that your silence can't be used against you often will offend out weigh any defense you might argue.
When guilt must be proven absence of evidence is the defendant's friend.
You may talk to police that way in America but any good lawyer will tell you not to because the strength of the fact that your silence can’t be used against you often will offend out weigh any defense you might argue.
And if you watch enough arraignments, it is just so painful to watch a defendant completely spill the beans even over a judge and lawyer telling them to shut up. So many people really don't seem to understand that they can't simply fast talk their way out of charges once the process starts, and everything they say is going to be recorded.
if you choose to temporarily waive your right to silence
you may at any point reassert that right.
You are saying this with so many words... do you really need to speak it out loud, like "I assert my right..."? I mean, can't you simply tell a thing or not tell it, at any time?
You have to actually say that you are asserting your right (in the US) to stop interrogations.
There was a case recentlyish (you can search for details if you're interested, I can only recall the broad strokes) where an accused said "I want a lawyer, dawg" and this was interpreted as "I want a lawyer dog", as in a dog who is a lawyer, and this was not found to be an assertion of the right to remain silent. The whole thing was eye rollingly stupid, but when in America....
The whole thing was eye rollingly stupid, but when in America....
Hehe :)
Here: nearly unthinkable. Nobody needs to inform the police in explicit words about their rights, because rights have to be respected whether you tell some magic spell or not, and the police knows people's rights, because it is their job, so nobody needs to explain them. These police would get their asses full of trouble for such a prank.
The "lawyer dog" case did not hinge on that.
The suspect,Warren Demesme, did not unequivocally demand a lawyer. He said: “If y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not whats up.”
The finding was that he asked a question rather than making a statement. The "dog" was completely irrelevant in the decision, but you know Internet pop news sites are going to be Internet pop news sites.
You can still think the outcome was expecting too much precision by a suspect and disagree with it, but let's at least be accurate in criticism/discussion instead of perpetuating meme tier inaccuracy.
You can indeed stay silent. However, if you want the police to stop asking you questions, you have to affirmatively say you are asserting your right. If you just clam up, the cops can keep asking and asking you things. Similar to getting a lawyer- you have the right to a lawyer, but when you are in police custody you aren't going to get one until you ask for it during the questioning.
Great question. In theory/practice you can just shut up from square one. But asserting your rights by doing so in clear unambiguous terms for is advisable. Judges understand someone saying "I wish to invoke my right against self incrimination as protected in the 5th amendment" better than the do pure silence.
The legal rights come into play exactly when the police come into the picture.
I don’t know all your amendments, but there is a thing like your 5th. just stronger: The accused is free not to help the police in any way. He may say things or remain silent, he needs not to give them things, and they may not create any kind of disadvantage for him from that. Also the court must not interpret this against him. Also spouse and family are not required to help or testify.
All of these are included in the 5th (except for subpoena of non-spouse family, but as a practical matter prosecution has a hard time forcing an unwilling family member to testify in any useful way), and on top of it the Miranda warning requirement exists to inform people of the rights. A lot of people just have a really, really difficult time shutting their mouths even when told to.
All of these are included in the 5th
I can hardly believe that, since I have read (not in movies) about cases when prosecution has forced accused people to give them passwords etc.
Circumstances? Passwords are contents of the mind, and therefore protected under the 5th. Someone in a situation where they are accused or under investigation has the 5th to fall back on.
There have been cases recently about the legality of forcing thumbprints on biometrically locked phones, under the theory that a thumbprint is a physical attribute and not something kept in the mind (so you know, lesson there is to keep using a old fashioned passcode). Otherwise, someone on bond or parole or something may have a condition of their arrangement be to allow their devices to be searched. Refusing that is a matter of breaking an agreement made in court.
Passwords are contents of the mind
Or contents of a piece of paper.
a condition of their arrangement be to allow their devices to be searched.
Outrageous. This is taking away the defendant's rights. Nobody can ever believe that he made this decision of his own free will.
Here, this right cannot be taken away, therefore such an agreement would be invalid.
Or contents of a piece of paper.
In the context of the discussion, I don't know what you are getting at here.
But compelling someone to say or type in a password is something where they could assert the 5th. If the police find the password written down on a piece of paper and then type it in themselves over the protest of the defendant, that is not a 5th amendment violation. That's just using a piece of physical evidence.
Outrageous. This is taking away the defendant’s rights. Nobody can ever believe that he made this decision if his own free will.
This was my speculation on how I imagine it could possibly happen, as you say you have seen it written about. I have never seen it happen as a condition this way, but if you provide more detail I can be more precise in answering.
But if it is say in another hypothetical, a condition on a deferred sentence, then at that point guilt has already been established and a the deferment is an alternative option from the baseline of prison. Again, some specific links to this happening would really help sort what it is you're seeing.
In the context of the discussion, I don't know what you are getting at here.
I was implicitly asking if it would be any different then, in your legislation. For example, can they ask him for the paper where the password is written?
A person is free to not answer any question. They can sit there completely silent.
No, that's not what I meant.
You said above > Passwords are contents of the mind, and therefore protected
So I am asking, isn't it protected in the same way if it is a content of a piece of paper in the defendant's possession?
Can they force him to give it to them, to tell them where it is, to confirm if it is his own piece of paper etc.
No, but they can get a warrant to search his property and find the paper on their own.
The knowledge of the location of the paper is a content of the mind. The defendant does not have to answer any question.
Here judges decide matters of law not fact.
Eeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...judges decide fact all the time in civil cases, or in criminal bench trials.
7th amendment applies to civil suits. Judges may when common law doesn't govern. But that's limited. And criminal defendants must consent to bench trial by not contesting any of the facts.
7th amendment applies to civil suits.
In the Federal system it does. At the state level, a jury for a particular civil matter is not guaranteed. Judges regularly end up as the finders of fact in state civil cases.
criminal defendants must consent to bench trial
Not always. If the case is not serious enough, a jury trial is not guaranteed. This SCOTUS case found 6 months to be the cutoff for a serious enough crime.
by not contesting any of the facts
A bench trial where no one is contesting the facts can happen, in that case the defendant is probably contesting the constitutionality of the law, so therefore doesn't need any dispute any of the facts. But, as in the above link, a case may happen where either the defendant is not guaranteed a jury because the punishment falls below the threshold establsihed, or they waive the jury and the judge sits in as the finder of both law and fact.
Brazil here.
The underage can't have their image and names disclosed in any way. The whole ordeal, both in administrative and judicial instances are kept in secret to not disclose their identities. That goes on even after the punishment is over.
Handcuffs shall only be used on a justified basis (risk of escape or violent subject), and it should be and exception. The non compliance by the state is subjected to investigation.
The ones who are in charge for their families and there's young kids to be taken care of, are sent home to care for the kiddos (if it wasn't a violent crime and it wasn't against the kids) - that's a way to not punish the kids for the existence of an ongoing investigation over the ones who take care of them. I'm explaining this one pretty plainly, but that's the spirit.
The accused don't have to say anything and that can't be held against him in any way.
The confession be the accused is not taken as definitive, it's just another detail to the process, and it can be dismissed if the other evidences say otherwise. (It can be deemed as the crime of meddling with the due process, thought, so if an innocent person confess a crime he didn't do, they won't be condemned by that one, but for another crime, with a 3 month to 2 years detention)
It's preferred if the accused can await in freedom for the result of the judicial process that may lead to their imprisonment. There are a few measures to grant their compliance to the process.
There may be others I'm forgetting
I don't think this happens before the conviction, but I always find it extremely alienating how US press reports will show mugshots and full names.
I mean, damn, why not hand out guns, so vigilantes have it even easier?
Certainly wouldn't be worse for the convicted than having to spend the rest of their lives doing crime, since they won't find a job anymore...
It absolutely happens before the conviction. Arrest records and mugshots are generally public information, and the press will publish them immediately in many cases.
There is also no obligation to retract/amend if the person is found innocent, and there is nothing the person can do if they use careful language (arrested for, accused of, allegedly). Most publications will refuse to take the article down later if the innocent person requests it, too, meaning that follows them forever. There are companies that make money offering the service to bury such articles to make it easier to get a job.
The US routinely demonstrates why most its peers do not do it this way.
this is America, half this country gets a boner when they think about shooting someone and being praised for it. all cops started this way and so they don't feel bad when the enable vigilante justice in others. they all think that shit's cool as hell anyway
The name of the accused can't usually be reported on in Canada. Though there seems to be many exceptions. Also, released offenders get a lot of protection. It's pretty controversial, especially when it's someone famous like this case.
Another odd Canadian one. It has been codified that a suspect saying the words "I'm sorry" cannot be used as proof of guilt. Since in Canada especially, it leans a bit more into meaning "pardon" or "excuse me" rather than how an American might interpret it more as an apology.
To me the whole "I'm sorry" being a legal admission of guilt thing is bullshit. Like is there any situation where that has actually been beneficial to someone not trying to commit insurance fraud?
Following her release, Homolka settled in Quebec, where she married a brother of her lawyer.
Honestly the most shocking part. Wtf
Respect their right to live
In dubio pro reo. Innocent until proven guilty. I thought that was in the universal declaration of human rights or something. Stunned to learn that any country that calls itself democratic could do otherwise.
Or, from another perspective: many people in my country take so much for granted, not knowing how lucky they are.
I don't even know what that is