Rights around the world

[Ed]

and how they affect MOI. Just kidding.

The question is this: We here in the US of A like to think that we are the freest, most free free people in the whole darn tootin' world.

Well, I wonder.

A point came up in another thread about the Feds getting info on various thing using the Patriot Act (PA). I wondered if in fact any country would make information unavailable to law enforcement. Do they?

Who in their own country needs an identity card? Do you have to hand them in at hotels? What about free speech? Are there any limitations? What about political parties?

Can the government stop publication of something? Under what circumstances?

You get the idea.......

oh, another one.....how long can a person be held without charges being filed?

Protections against double jeperdy?
Can you be forced to testify against yourself? (This was changed recently in the UK, I believe)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ed
Protections against double jeperdy?

Many (including me) would argue that we lost (much of) that right during the civil rights movement.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
and how they affect MOI.

"MOI"? How elitist, you brie-gobbling, Beujoulais-Nouveau-sipping Liberal!

Originally posted by Ed
Just kidding.

Right. We know what you are..... :p

Originally posted by Ed
The question is this: We here in the US of A like to think that we are the freest, most free free people in the whole darn tootin' world.

And you also think you can spell.

Originally posted by Ed
Well, I wonder.

Wonders never cease.

Originally posted by Ed
A point came up in another thread about the Feds getting info on various thing using the Patriot Act (PA). I wondered if in fact any country would make information unavailable to law enforcement. Do they?

Not here in Denmark. You still need a court order. Unlike in the US, that paragon of freedom.

Originally posted by Ed
Who in their own country needs an identity card?

Not here in Denmark. Unlike in the US, that paragon of freedom. We have a unique number, which we have on our Social Security card. But the card itself is not absolutely necessary.

Originally posted by Ed
Do you have to hand them in at hotels?

Nope. Foreigners might be asked to show their passports, especially from non-EU countries. I doubt it, though....

Originally posted by Ed
What about free speech? Are there any limitations?

You cannot threathen other people, either specific persons, or groups (based on e.g. ethnicity). That's about it.

Originally posted by Ed
What about political parties?

The constitution forbids any organization of any kind that strives to achieve its goals by violent means. That's about it.

Originally posted by Ed
Can the government stop publication of something? Under what circumstances?

It's not the "government" as such. We have an ombudsman (a Danish term, in case you didn't know), as well as the courts. If the government even thought about stopping the publication of anything, there would be a major outcry.

Originally posted by Ed
oh, another one.....how long can a person be held without charges being filed?

24 hours before he has to appear before a judge.

Originally posted by Ed
Protections against double jeperdy?

I'm sorry, but "Jeopardy" is way too popular to be stopped here, even by the Constitution.

Originally posted by Ed
Can you be forced to testify against yourself? (This was changed recently in the UK, I believe)

Not here in Denmark. Recently, we had a case about a lawyer who was asked to testify against his own client. The case was killed.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Many (including me) would argue that we lost (much of) that right during the civil rights movement.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you elaborate?

Jeremy

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by toddjh
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you elaborate?

Jeremy

In the 50's (?) and 60's, during trials in the 'deep' south, some jury's refused to convict those (whites) tried for crimes (against blacks), presumably because of racial preference. This prompted the federal government to re-try the accused under federal, rather than state laws. Even though it was for the same act.

The most recent example is that involving the Rodney (why can't we all just get along) King incident. The cops involved were aquitted but they were re-tried, in a different court and a different venue, under 'civil rights' violations and convicted.

The supreme court upheld this form of double jepordy, but I honestly don't understand the rationale behind the ruling.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not here in Denmark. You still need a court order. Unlike in the US, that paragon of freedom.

You have been misinformed. A court order is required here as well. The PA does not change that, nor does it attempt to do so. The only exception, a long standing exception, is clear and present danger/obvious to the casual observer (a single example: someone running from the police is seen running into a house...they may follow)

I'm pretty sure you have that exception as well.

Edit to add: The PA does give (or rather, further expounds upon) the ability of law enforcement to to search your house without your knowledge and/or tap your conversations, also without your knowledge. Really nothing new, and really nothing pretty (IMO). There is also a clause within it that (may or may not...?) forbid you from telling others should you find out. That part will not pass constitutional muster and will, eventually, be overturned on appeal. One must hope so anyway.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
In the 50's (?) and 60's, during trials in the 'deep' south, some jury's refused to convict those (whites) tried for crimes (against blacks), presumably because of racial preference. This prompted the federal government to re-try the accused under federal, rather than state laws. Even though it was for the same act.

The most recent example is that involving the Rodney (why can't we all just get along) King incident. The cops involved were aquitted but they were re-tried, in a different court and a different venue, under 'civil rights' violations and convicted.

The supreme court upheld this form of double jepordy, but I honestly don't understand the rationale behind the ruling.
correct me if I'm wrong....this is off te top of my head, don't have time to research.... I believe it was not double jeopardy because they were not re-tried for the same offence. I think I remember that in the "deep south" cases they were charged with a frederal crime...not murder but something to do with denying the victims some rights? was it the same with the king case???

It cannot be double if the charges are for different offences...ie muder/assault and denial of rights.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by The Fool
correct me if I'm wrong....this is off te top of my head, don't have time to research.... I believe it was not double jeopardy because they were not re-tried for the same offence. I think I remember that in the "deep south" cases they were charged with a frederal crime...not murder but something to do with denying the victims some rights? was it the same with the king case???

It cannot be double if the charges are for different offences...ie muder/assault and denial of rights.

You are mostly correct. The problem (in my view) comes with the difference between the concepts "acts" and "offenses".

It cannot be argued that they were NOT retried for the same act. In my (novice and humble) opinion, the constitution is clear regrading that. The supreme court disagreed.

Edit to add: suppose you are tried for robbing the corner store at gunpoint. There are many, many offenses of which they can accuse and convict you. To name a few: robbery, armed robbery, illegal possession of a firearm, illegal use of a firearm, endangering the safety of others, tresspassing, etc ad nausia (and I could really make you sick if I wanted to). In all cases regarding these type crimes, the accused is either tried under state laws or federal laws. Very rarely is he charged under both and usually in those cases the trial is more or less 'combined'. In either event, the charges are piled up so as to most effect a plea bargin.

The only cases that come to mind where the government (state and/or federal) went after someone already tried (whether or not convicted) that did not involve racial issues is the Oklahoma City bombing (McVeigh) and...I forgot my second example...where's my beer?

Shoot, I could have won next month's language award had I only remembered the second example. Dang. Back to AA I go.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
In the 50's (?) and 60's, during trials in the 'deep' south, some jury's refused to convict those (whites) tried for crimes (against blacks), presumably because of racial preference. This prompted the federal government to re-try the accused under federal, rather than state laws. Even though it was for the same act.

Ah. That's a gray area, I think. You could make the case that double jeopardy doesn't apply in situations like that, because the likelihood that the jury had predetermined innocence meant that the defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place. The justice system depends on people receiving fair trials.

Of course, that argument depends on the original trial being unfair from the start. Barring strong evidence to that effect, I'd have to agree with you.

Jeremy

[crimresearch]

The federal civil rights prosecutions of the 60s weren't all a novel reading of the statutes, created to undermine the Constitution.
They were in many cases more of a reaction to 'state's rights' in the form of blatantly corrupt local justice systems.
And the persons accused had in fact broken two entirely different sets of laws with one set of actions.

The negative fallout comes in the form of overzealous federal prosecutors looking for that big case to move up the political food chain, using the latitude given them by federal consiracy laws to make cases in a a manner that has led some people to complain that they are 'piling on'...

There was a big case in Boston a while back...lots of arrests, lots of publicity, end results, some GS-4 meat plant inspectors lost their jobs under a mountain of federal charges, while the major bribe givers and takers stayed fat and happy.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
You are mostly correct. The problem (in my view) comes with the difference between the concepts "acts" and "offenses".

It cannot be argued that they were NOT retried for the same act. In my (novice and humble) opinion, the constitution is clear regrading that. The supreme court disagreed.

Edit to add: suppose you are tried for robbing the corner store at gunpoint. There are many, many offenses of which they can accuse and convict you. To name a few: robbery, armed robbery, illegal possession of a firearm, illegal use of a firearm, endangering the safety of others, tresspassing, etc ad nausia (and I could really make you sick if I wanted to). In all cases regarding these type crimes, the accused is either tried under state laws or federal laws. Very rarely is he charged under both and usually in those cases the trial is more or less 'combined'. In either event, the charges are piled up so as to most effect a plea bargin.

The only cases that come to mind where the government (state and/or federal) went after someone already tried (whether or not convicted) that did not involve racial issues is the Oklahoma City bombing (McVeigh) and...I forgot my second example...where's my beer?

Shoot, I could have won next month's language award had I only remembered the second example. Dang. Back to AA I go.

I may be recalling this incorrectly, but I have the distinct impression that DeLorean was tried and tried again till the feds nailed him. Different charges, different evidence (I think that that is cause for being retried) whatever, they nailed him.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ed
....different evidence (I think that that is cause for being retried)...

I'm don't know about that particular case but the above is (still) decidedly incorrect. New evidence does not a new try warrant unless it is evidence for the defense. And in that case only rarely (death penalty cases withstanding but still, only evidence for the defense).

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Ed
I may be recalling this incorrectly, but I have the distinct impression that DeLorean was tried and tried again till the feds nailed him. Different charges, different evidence (I think that that is cause for being retried) whatever, they nailed him.

Kind of like Al Capone

or Marcus Garvey

or Wen Ho Lee

or...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Kind of like Al Capone

or Marcus Garvey

or Wen Ho Lee

or...

I don't know about the others but Al Capone doesn't apply, IMO.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Ed
A point came up in another thread about the Feds getting info on various thing using the Patriot Act (PA). I wondered if in fact any country would make information unavailable to law enforcement. Do they?

There have been issues with the Data Protection Act in the UK recently. Essentially, it's so complicated and difficultly worded that bodies (including the police) have got into the habit of either deleting personal data or just not sharing it at all - it's easier to comply like this than to check the conditions under which it's legal to keep the data or share it. This has led to various incidents where the dots between departments haven't been joined and criminals have been allowed more freedom than they should have.

This is a result of a law/right being badly implemented though, rather than being a markedly different right/freedom to those available in other countries.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I don't know about the others but Al Capone doesn't apply, IMO.

Not in the double jeopardy sense, but definitely in the repeated attempts to lock him up for various offenses before finally being convicted by the feds.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
You have been misinformed. A court order is required here as well. The PA does not change that, nor does it attempt to do so. The only exception, a long standing exception, is clear and present danger/obvious to the casual observer (a single example: someone running from the police is seen running into a house...they may follow)

I'm pretty sure you have that exception as well.

Edit to add: The PA does give (or rather, further expounds upon) the ability of law enforcement to to search your house without your knowledge and/or tap your conversations, also without your knowledge. Really nothing new, and really nothing pretty (IMO). There is also a clause within it that (may or may not...?) forbid you from telling others should you find out. That part will not pass constitutional muster and will, eventually, be overturned on appeal. One must hope so anyway.

Nothing new?

For centuries, common law has required that the government can't go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That "knock and announce" principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later.
Source: ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13593&c=130)

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
In the 50's (?) and 60's, during trials in the 'deep' south, some jury's refused to convict those (whites) tried for crimes (against blacks), presumably because of racial preference. This prompted the federal government to re-try the accused under federal, rather than state laws. Even though it was for the same act.

You mean the Mississippi Burning trial? (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm) Check out the link for a great source of information.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ed
...snip...


Who in their own country needs an identity card? Do you have to hand them in at hotels? What about free speech? Are there any limitations? What about political parties?
...snip...


UK. At the moment we don't have ID cards and I'm actively fighting (politically) to try and see the latest government plans to introduce them aren’t passed.


Originally posted by Ed
Can the government stop publication of something? Under what circumstances?


They could go to the courts and get an injunction (like a private individual can) based on quite a few things. However there are what were called (and quite notorious) "D-notices", now replaced with the "friendlier" DA-Notices see: http://www.dnotice.org.uk/

There is also the Official Secrets Act that can be invoked to prevent publication of (as it says) "official secrets".



oh, another one.....how long can a person be held without charges being filed?


Depends on the charge (like the USA recently it has been extended for "terrorists") and where in the UK you are. In England and Wales it is 24 hours (can be extended to 36 hours if a superintendent agrees it) longer then that the police need to gain magistrates approval. In Scotland I believe it is just 6 hours and in NI it is different again.


Protections against double jeperdy?


Protected (although the government wants to alter this).



Can you be forced to testify against yourself? (This was changed recently in the UK, I believe) [/B]

Yes and no. What was changed recently was the fact that the prosecution can now use as part of their case the fact that you've kept silent or didn't mention something, when arrested, the police caution was changed to:

"It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Ed
and how they affect MOI. Just kidding.

The question is this: We here in the US of A like to think that we are the freest, most free free people in the whole darn tootin' world.

Well, I wonder.

A point came up in another thread about the Feds getting info on various thing using the Patriot Act (PA). I wondered if in fact any country would make information unavailable to law enforcement. Do they?

Who in their own country needs an identity card? Do you have to hand them in at hotels? What about free speech? Are there any limitations? What about political parties?

Can the government stop publication of something? Under what circumstances?

You get the idea.......

oh, another one.....how long can a person be held without charges being filed?

Protections against double jeperdy?
Can you be forced to testify against yourself? (This was changed recently in the UK, I believe)

No identity card (but the government wants to introduce one - initially on a voluntary basis).

Few restrictions on free speech.

Government needs to go to court to stop publication (as does anyone else wishing to do so).

In Scotland, you can be held without being charged for six hours. In England and Wales for 24 (or 36 with the approval of a senior police officer). There are different limits for terror offences but I can't find these at the moment.

Currently have protection against double jeopardy (but again th government wants to remove it).

Cannot be forced to testify against yourself. The change you are referring to was that juries are now allowed to take into account the fact you exercised your right to remain silent when deciding on your guilt. (Although I fail to see how it can be relevant - either the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that you did it or they have not. How can the fact you say nothing change that?)

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet



Cannot be forced to testify against yourself. The change you are referring to was that juries are now allowed to take into account the fact you exercised your right to remain silent when deciding on your guilt. (Although I fail to see how it can be relevant - either the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that you did it or they have not. How can the fact you say nothing change that?)



Well you can't be forced to testify but if you choose to do so the judge may require you to answer a question you consider self incriminatory.

An accused's refusal to testify seems as relevant to me as, say demeanour when answering a question. A trial is not a philosophical game, unlike debate here.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Nikk
Well you can't be forced to testify but if you choose to do so the judge may require you to answer a question you consider self incriminatory.

You can agree to take the stand but still refuse particular questions under the Fifth Amendment. It's not a right you give up entirely by agreeing to testify at all.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Nikk
Well you can't be forced to testify but if you choose to do so the judge may require you to answer a question you consider self incriminatory.

An accused's refusal to testify seems as relevant to me as, say demeanour when answering a question. A trial is not a philosophical game, unlike debate here.

But the requirement is that the prosecution prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt - either they have done that or they have not. How does you saying nothing change the evidence they have produced?