I, for one, am appalled. Given that the United States has the highest incarceration rates of any country in the free world, having an attorney present with you in the interrogation room shouldn't be a concern here in the Great White North. If it obviously doesn't make a difference down south, why would it be any different here?
I also believe that any detainee or suspect be fully granted all the Rights and Freedoms guaranteed to them under the Charter, even if they are suspect of criminal activity. But the truth is not everyone knows exactly what all their Rights are, which is why in my opinion, Legal counsel ought to be permitted.
Fortunately this means nothing in regards to the right to remain silent.
Last edited by HeartsOfFire; 10-09-2010 at 09:55 AM.
I am glad criminals cannot waste our time by speaking to a lawyer first. I want the cops to do their jobs, if I am innocent, then the truth will set me free. If I am guilty then lock me up.
We have soldiers dying overseas, we can certainly sacrifice a little at home to keep everyone safe.
You want to be appalled? Go to the rest of the world and see what it is like to be arrested.
I am glad criminals cannot waste our time by speaking to a lawyer first. I want the cops to do their jobs, if I am innocent, then the truth will set me free. If I am guilty then lock me up.
We have soldiers dying overseas, we can certainly sacrifice a little at home to keep everyone safe.
You want to be appalled? Go to the rest of the world and see what it is like to be arrested.
Your logic is pretty weird. "The rest of the world" has poor legal protections for those arrested, which is the same place we're sending our soldiers to die, so we should have fewer legal protections here when we get arrested. ... Because our soldiers should be dying here? Because legal protections are overrated? Because the playing field of legal rights should be level for everyone?
I think you're just taking a dramatic stance without thinking through your own opinion because you like to think of yourself as "hardcore".
Oh, and people who have been arrested still have the right to legal counsel, Canadians just don't have the right to have a lawyer present during police interrogations. We can refuse to speak until we've spoken to a lawyer, but the police don't have to let the lawyer in the room while they're questioning us.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
I am glad criminals cannot waste our time by speaking to a lawyer first.
Guilty until proven innocent, Nage?
Quote:
if I am innocent, then the truth will set me free.
Likewise, if you are guilty and Law Enforcement can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Lawyer's not going to be much good except to maybe cut a deal.
I made a powerful statement in a previous threat, but I think to some I made it too powerful, so I shall re-iterate a toned-down version of it here: I would rather let ten murderers walk free than see one innocent person wrongly convicted.
If someday in the future I happen to find myself in the unfortunate position of an interrogation room because I happen to match the description of a homicide suspect, and I'm not permitted to have an attorney with me in the interrogation room, I would fully invoke my right to remain silent if I felt the questions being asked of me were intended to tie me to whatever evidence they already had.
I am glad criminals cannot waste our time by speaking to a lawyer first. I want the cops to do their jobs, if I am innocent, then the truth will set me free. If I am guilty then lock me up.
We have soldiers dying overseas, we can certainly sacrifice a little at home to keep everyone safe.
You want to be appalled? Go to the rest of the world and see what it is like to be arrested.
You really, really, really, REALLY need to watch this video:
This is nothing new, the right never existed in Canada before.
It amazes me how many people in Canada essentially convict themselves by talking to the police. You have the right to say nothing. And the fact that you say nothing can not be used against you to convict you. So shut up. If you talk and you did do it, that's great if it aids in your conviction, I like that!
This is a great video talking about how even the innocent can get convicted by talking: (its US, but applies similarly here as well)
Edit: MarchHare beat me to posting the video.... but you all should watch it.
I think the only time you have to talk is to give a statement in a motor vehicle accident --- but it can only be used for limited purposes. Vladtheimpaler could tell you more, that's his area.
Last edited by Kjesse; 10-08-2010 at 05:05 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
I am glad criminals cannot waste our time by speaking to a lawyer first. I want the cops to do their jobs, if I am innocent, then the truth will set me free. If I am guilty then lock me up.
We have soldiers dying overseas, we can certainly sacrifice a little at home to keep everyone safe.
You want to be appalled? Go to the rest of the world and see what it is like to be arrested.
Didn't read the article, but there is no way the court should ever "impose constitutional guarantees". If the court can't find a charter clause that says this needs to be mandatory, then the court has no option but to rule the way it did and hope that government will pass a law if they so choose.
For those touting the video, here's a nice one, "The court also ruled that police can continue to ask questions even after a suspect has invoked the right to silence."
So now you tell me how the video helps. Even if you choose not to talk they can continue to question you. Until they decide to stop. Good luck with that.
From the posted article, "He was later interviewed by police for about five hours, and he stated five times during the questioning that he wanted his lawyer present. The officer advised Sinclair he did not have the right to a lawyer and eventually Sinclair implicated himself in Grice’s death."
It seems to indicate they can browbeat you all they want.
Also, one argument seems to ride on that in the US law enforcement was abusing their position and it still happens, but in Canada it won't.
For those touting the video, here's a nice one, "The court also ruled that police can continue to ask questions even after a suspect has invoked the right to silence."
So now you tell me how the video helps. Even if you choose not to talk they can continue to question you. Until they decide to stop. Good luck with that.
From the posted article, "He was later interviewed by police for about five hours, and he stated five times during the questioning that he wanted his lawyer present. The officer advised Sinclair he did not have the right to a lawyer and eventually Sinclair implicated himself in Grice’s death."
It seems to indicate they can browbeat you all they want.
Also, one argument seems to ride on that in the US law enforcement was abusing their position and it still happens, but in Canada it won't.
ers
This points out the major issue with this decision. Under US law invoking the right to counsel precludes questioning until you actively choose to change your mind. As far as I can tell the rule in Canada now allows cops to scream at you for hours on end hoping that you will break your silence and give an incriminating answer. It's a despicable standard for a modern nation. I'm absolutely appalled, to the point of embarrassment, that this is the law in my home nation. I hope that when I get some time to read the full opinion the reality is different from my current impression.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Why is everyone jumping on me? I am glad the rules are the way they are! I also said we can sacrifice a bit at home, what the hell did you think I meant by that? If a cop wants to ask me questions, then go for it. Does that mean I think I am hardcore??? If I am innocent then I have nothing to hide.
Many other countries will lock you up for a few months before you talk to anyone, here they ask you questions prior to speaking to a lawyer (or something to that effect).
So because of my beliefs it means I didn't think this through? I support our current system, not something that does not exist, so I doubt it is me that needs to think it through. I like the status quo but would like even more options for the police.
I wouldn't want ten murderers walking around free to keep one innocent person out of jail. To do that, I think the whole justice system would have to fold, since no one would be convicted of anything anymore. Yes, there are innocent people who have been jailed and even executed for another person's crime. I certainly do not think that is good, it is a reality of our system. We do our best to prevent it, but it can still happen.
What is with the personal attacks???
The Following User Says Thank You to Nage Waza For This Useful Post:
Why is everyone jumping on me? I am glad the rules are the way they are! I also said we can sacrifice a bit at home, what the hell did you think I meant by that? If a cop wants to ask me questions, then go for it. Does that mean I think I am hardcore??? If I am innocent then I have nothing to hide.
Many other countries will lock you up for a few months before you talk to anyone, here they ask you questions prior to speaking to a lawyer (or something to that effect).
So because of my beliefs it means I didn't think this through? I support our current system, not something that does not exist, so I doubt it is me that needs to think it through. I like the status quo but would like even more options for the police.
I wouldn't want ten murderers walking around free to keep one innocent person out of jail. To do that, I think the whole justice system would have to fold, since no one would be convicted of anything anymore. Yes, there are innocent people who have been jailed and even executed for another person's crime. I certainly do not think that is good, it is a reality of our system. We do our best to prevent it, but it can still happen.
What is with the personal attacks???
So you're of the opinion that the standard should be guilty until proven innocent? I'm sure that will remain your opinion if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and are falsely accused.
This standard allows the police to abuse their power to illicit incriminating responses. Having a lawyer present doesn't prevent questioning, it prevents misleading and coercive questioning. Apparently in Canada the prevention of that isn't an issue. Pathetic.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Why is everyone jumping on me? I am glad the rules are the way they are! I also said we can sacrifice a bit at home, what the hell did you think I meant by that? If a cop wants to ask me questions, then go for it. Does that mean I think I am hardcore??? If I am innocent then I have nothing to hide.
What is with the personal attacks???
Part of living in a democracy means we don't have to sacrifice our rights just because the cops think we did something wrong.
__________________ “The fact is that censorship always defeats it's own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”
Henry Steel Commager (1902-1998)
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bcb For This Useful Post:
I wouldn't want ten murderers walking around free to keep one innocent person out of jail. To do that, I think the whole justice system would have to fold, since no one would be convicted of anything anymore.
You must not like living in Canada, the U.S. or England--or anywhere in the commonwealth.
The ten-to-one ratio is an accepted principle of justice under English common law. Other ratios have been suggested (as low as 4-1 and as high as 1000-1) but 10-1 is known as the "Blackstone Principle" after English jurist William Blackstone, though the actual principle is much older.
The key to it is this: the burden of proving the guilt of a person accused of an offense lies on the Crown, and never shifts to the accused. It's a fundamental limitation of state power and a key principle (in my view) in a free society.
Like valo, I'm extremely troubled by this ruling. Given the court's logic in Christie, it's not really a huge shock. Unfortunately, the Charter specifically only guarantees counsel to persons "charged with an offence." In Christie, the court found that access to counsel was not a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the charter--so given that, it's hard to see how they could come to any other conclusion than the one that they did.
Ultimately, it's a very troubling decision, but I sort of feel like the court's hands were tied, given the wording of the Charter.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
I am of the opinion that if the justice system correctly convicts ten people for crimes committed, and wrongly convicts one for a crime committed by someone else, then it has failed.
Conversely, if ten crooks AND an innocent person walk due to a lack of hard evidence, then it has succeeded.
In a society where the justice system is built around 'innocent until proven guilty,' EVERYONE facing trial before a judge or jury is innocent, no matter how gruesome the crime, UNLESS the facts say otherwise. Which is why I tend to stir up hornet's nests when controversial crimes come up for debate here. The media, especially the Sun, has a tendency to fill the public's collective mind with the belief that the prime suspect did the deed even before the trial has started. A despicable thing to do.
I am glad criminals cannot waste our time by speaking to a lawyer first. I want the cops to do their jobs, if I am innocent, then the truth will set me free. If I am guilty then lock me up.
We have soldiers dying overseas, we can certainly sacrifice a little at home to keep everyone safe.
You want to be appalled? Go to the rest of the world and see what it is like to be arrested.
1. David Milgaard says hi.
2. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
3. That doesn't excuse our own injustices here.
1. David Milgaard says hi.
2. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
3. That doesn't excuse our own injustices here.
Legal counsel right does not extend to interrogation room: Supreme Court of Canada
