From the standpoint of the accused The American Constitutional right against self incrimination is vastly superior to your system. The state must completely prove it';s case against me. I have no responsibility to aid them in any way. My defense is completely reserved for my trial.
I don't know about your law, but before you even think about discussing UK criminal laws and defences you should have statred which (criminal) legal system you had in mind. So please, state which legal system you are referring to.
One of our systems even has more than two possible jury verdicts, and you probably have nothing of the kind.
I would feel much more 'at home' ( ) defending myself here. Having said that, we've just had the most horrific discoveries where one Police Force has been witholding evidence which could have assisted in the defence of hundreds, yes hundreds of rape defendants. Bloody disgusting.
Anyway, please state which criminal legal system here you want to talk about.
From the standpoint of the investigating officer, I like your system.
Which legal system???? !!!!
They are as different as chalk and cheese!
The required evidence for a conviction varies so much, according to the duiffering systems!
As one who has conducted criminal interrogations, you know that if you can get a suspect talking about anything, with skill you can keep them talking, and many inadvertently implicate themselves, your caution implies that it might be best to explain yourself to a point.
You wouldn't do so well here. If you are investigating any incident here, whether for defence or for prosecution, the very first rule could well be tp get your own mindset balanced out to professional exactness, and to even think of words like 'interrogation' puts one at disadvantage before even walking into the interview room or place.
In our system, our warning is implicit, "you have the RIGHT to remain silent, you have the RIGHT to have an attorney present before answering any questions". If a suspect says the magic words, "I want an attorney", you may not ask another question, and you know you will never get any kind of answer from the suspect, his attorney will be present if you try, and counsel will advise him to saying nothing, remain silent. You don't bother.,[/QOTE]
Our varying legal systems have entirely differing warnings and pre-question cautions. Which one would you like to focus upon?
Every citizen is protected from badgering and repeated interrogation, from being broken down. Our Founders having lived under the British system of the time wanted to be sure the citizenry was protected from self incrimination, and that the state had to prove it's case entirely.
I would never, ever, under any circumstances in a criminal investigation even think of the word 'interrogation'. However......
Oh no .......... not here, not there.
The very first question that our Judges, in any of our criminal legal systems, ask a defendant, is:- How do you plead to the charge(s), Guilty or Not Guilty?
Which part of the plea 'Guilty' do you not understand as 'self incrimination'?
As to sentences, we are amazed at yours for serious crime. Murderers, what over here we call premeditated murderers, getting out after 10 years ? We hold the life of the murdered victim very highly, so when a sentence is given for life, it could very well mean life. In some states, the sentence could be death for multiple murders for particularly heinous killings. Justice in my view.
Huh? Much of the common-law in our various criminal legal systems was mainly developed from the 15th century, from Roman law. But we have a mix of many backgrounds dating long before then.
But during the time that I have held an interest in civil and criminal law, common law has slowly been retired by Government Legislation.
Our system is better, imo, our hopes for offender rehabilitation seem stronger, but our character protection in as much as Arrest without Conviction is erased from the register, whereas you seem to keep record of them all, and damage chatracters which are innocent...?
For you I suspect, it depends upon the right. In the interest of identifying criminals and security, if a majority decided the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures showed be abandoned, would you agree ? How about freedom of speech ? what if society felt it best that you not speak in a negative way about the government, is that acceptable ? Since Southern society felt that separate but equal was acceptable, Jim Crow laws were acceptable ? I won't even go to slavery before the civil war.
Rights exist in the Constitution because they cannot be arbitrarily removed by the majority. Blacks have the civil rights guaranteed them by the Constitution, and enforced via the Civil Rights act, regardless of what society thought at the time.
There is a mechanism available to add or remove these rights, it is an extremely high bar, and no right has ever been removed, though a few have been added.
We do not live in a democracy where the majority can decide everything, No one is protected from anything.
We live in a Constitutional Republic, where ALL Constitutional rights are protected, that's the way it is.
For those who despise, say, the second amendment, there is a way to affect it. For those who despise the Republic, and want a democracy, that can be done through a Convention of the States.
I say this is the American way and those folks should go for it
Perhaps. It appears that your definition of pro life for yourself is noble. I am not sure how far it extends.
I carried a pistol as part of my work for a long time. I praise God I never had to use it. However, if faced with the situation where my life or someone else's was under immediate threat., I would eliminate that threat with my pistol. Does that mean I am not pro life ?
I don't know about your law, but before you even think about discussing UK criminal laws and defences you should have statred which (criminal) legal system you had in mind. So please, state which legal system you are referring to.
One of our systems even has more than two possible jury verdicts, and you probably have nothing of the kind.
I would feel much more 'at home' ( ) defending myself here. Having said that, we've just had the most horrific discoveries where one Police Force has been witholding evidence which could have assisted in the defence of hundreds, yes hundreds of rape defendants. Bloody disgusting.
Anyway, please state which criminal legal system here you want to talk about.
Which legal system???? !!!!
They are as different as chalk and cheese!
The required evidence for a conviction varies so much, according to the duiffering systems!
You wouldn't do so well here. If you are investigating any incident here, whether for defence or for prosecution, the very first rule could well be tp get your own mindset balanced out to professional exactness, and to even think of words like 'interrogation' puts one at disadvantage before even walking into the interview room or place.
Huh? Much of the common-law in our various criminal legal systems was mainly developed from the 15th century, from Roman law. But we have a mix of many backgrounds dating long before then.
But during the time that I have held an interest in civil and criminal law, common law has slowly been retired by Government Legislation.
Our system is better, imo, our hopes for offender rehabilitation seem stronger, but our character protection in as much as Arrest without Conviction is erased from the register, whereas you seem to keep record of them all, and damage chatracters which are innocent...?
Which system ? You have two separate systems for criminal law ? Professional exactness, what is that when it is at home ? Interview and interrogate when one is exchanging with a criminal suspect mean exactly the same thing. One is newer, one is older terminology.
Rehabilitation has been studied in depth for years, it is essentially a myth. There are no significant differences in recidivism rates between being rehabilitated and punished. Rehabilitation costs more.
Arrests without conviction are not passed on from one department to another via a ¨rap sheet¨. You may become aware of an arrest if an arresting officer in your dept. tells you, or you have personal contacts in another dept., but thatś it.
Yes, I am aware of your police scandal. Political correctness and bending over backwards to protect those who don´t
deserve protection, so very sad.
You stated you posted your comparison of Christianity and Islam, which was the topic of another conversation. I am sorry, but I can;'t find it. Would you be so kind as to give me a post # so I can respond ?
en spoken to most muslims, anywhere. I have only read their holy books that their religion says takes supreme authority over any and all in the faith. These books define a good muslim, not I
You can't only go by what particular books say, or rather what your interpretations of them say - Islam, like many other religions, is a living faith - it is to the people who practice it that you must look.
I do indeed, it's the first Surah, and I think it's pretty unique in that it clearly establishes the Muslim vs. non-Muslim conflict right from the get-go.
There's a lot more to the prayer than just the first chapter of the Koran. But that aside, where does that first chapter establish the Muslim vs non-Muslim conflict?
There's a lot more to the prayer than just the first chapter of the Koran. But that aside, where does that first chapter establish the Muslim vs non-Muslim conflict?
Again, I suspect foul play on your part, but for now... let me ask you this, let's say you have a sanitized translation of the Quran, who do you think are "those who have gone astray" in the seventh verse. Because whoever "they" are, Allah is forever angry with them.
You're calling me ignorant? I'm not really interested in your judgments of me. Please keep them to yourself.
You claim authority and superiority here, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Your credentials in RF are your posts, not your claims of superiority.
But since you've opened that door, I feel unimpeded pointing out that your failure to see the similarities between these two religions reveals your ignorance of them. And I'll support that claim :
Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, Yahweh and Allah, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, capricious, prudish, strongman that requires worship and submission.
Believers of both attend temples (Mosques or churches) and obey paternalistic, misogynisitic clergy.
Both religions embrace magical thinking, mythology, dogma, the supernatural, and ritual.
Each feature demons angels, prayer, an afterlife, a judgment, and a system of reward and punishment after death.
Each has its now centuries old holy book of internal contradictions, failed prophecies, and errors of history and science. I'm not as sure about the Qur'an, but it likely also contain vengeance, hatred, tribalism, violence, and failed morals that endorse slavery, rape, infanticide, and incest.
They each think they have the right to determine who should be allowed to have sex whom how, who should be able to marry whom, and what women must do regarding their bodies.
Both are patriarchal, authoritarian, misogynistic, sexually repressive, anhedonisitic, atheophobic, homophobic, antiscientiific, use psychological terrorism on their children, have violent histories featuring torture, genocide and terrorism, and demand obedience and submission.
Each consider faith a virtue and reason a problem.
Each has a history of opposing human rights and science.
Each advocates theocracy over democracy.
That's an incredible degree of similarity. As I argued earlier with no rebuttal, the major difference is that Christianity has been rendered in states governed by secular humanist values, especially secularism (church-state separation). That argument, unaddressed, still stands.
You castigared me for calling you ignorant, but you are as relates to Christianity v Islam
Regarding Christianity, your obvious pathological hatred leads you to spew warped opinion, as fact.
First, Christians Follow the manifestation of God, in the NT, Yashua the Messiah. His teachings and those of his Apostles are the only teachings that any true Christian is to follow. These teachings show no support for your accusations against Christianity. There is no comparison to be made between Christ and his teachings and allah the arabaic moon god.
Second, Christians worship in churches. At least Protestants have no obligation to follow anyone or anything but the teachings of Christ.
Third, your OPINION of what is myth stands on no authority but your own, an opinion. There is nothing wrong with considering the supernatural, after all, what once was considered supernatural is fact today. There are things that occur that are supernatural, for now.
Fourth, your rant beginning with both are patriarchal ceases to be truthful about Christianity through your whining litany till you come to history. The moment Christianity became the religion of Constantine and was married to government, it was subverted by those seeking power in government. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. True Christianity was abased and unspeakable non Christian acts were committed in the pursuit of power.
Fifth, Christianity considers faith foremost and reason only second to that. BOTH are compatible.
Sixth, the greatest scientists in history have been Christians. The history of the Nobel prize in medicine and science shows a shows a number of Christians and religious Jews.
Seventh, Christianity has NEVER supported a theocracy, In fact, half the Founders were Christians, all were Theists and all supported a government free of a state religion. The position of the vast majority of Christians is exactly the same.
Eighth, The Christian ¨Holy Book¨, the NT, has none of the things written in it that you say it does
Ninth, You obviously have not read Paul regarding the sexual perversions of his day in the Roman empire. He, in essence, says to ignore them. ONLY IN THE CHURCH is homosexuality and same sex marriage proscribed. It is the same today. The world can go to hell in any way it chooses, these acts cannot be tolerated in the Church, and anyone who chooses them can freely do so, they just can choose to join the Church.
As already stated, your opinions about Christianity are devoid of fact, Of islam, I agree with most.
You can't only go by what particular books say, or rather what your interpretations of them say - Islam, like many other religions, is a living faith - it is to the people who practice it that you must look.
Yeah, but who are ya gunna believe? A True American like @shmogie or some random, probably Obama supporting, probably illegal immigrant, Supreme Court nobody?
If I want to, say, paint my house pink but my town has a by-law against it, I would not be freer in any practical sense if it was a home owner's association, condo board, or landlord that was stopping me from painting my house pink instead of the town.
Edit: if you have no "public square" besides the local mall, the mall owner's rules for what you can and can't say in the mall impact on your ability to say what you want in the public square. This represents a restriction of freedom for the individual, even if you accept that the mall owner's property rights make the restriction legitimate.
Oh, this should be good. Do, please, tell us how to determine one from the other? I do so hope it's more than "things I personally like and approve of are freedoms, things I personally dislike or am made uncomfortable by are licensious"?
Each.... feature a judgment.....and a system of reward and punishment.....
I'm not as sure about the Qur'an, but it likely also contain vengeance, hatred, tribalism, violence, and failed morals that endorse slavery, rape, infanticide, and incest.
Both... have violent histories featuring torture, genocide and terrorism, and demand obedience and submission.
As I understand it, Islam essentially says that the infidel can and should be killed by the faithful. Christians like to point to this as how barbaric Islam is, while boasting about how compassionate and forgiving Christians are. But Christians do the same thing or worse to the unbeliever that Islam does to the infidel, by passing the buck to their god, who inflicts everlasting torment upon the unbeliever in some forgotten Hell and then wash their hands of the matter. "Hey! I didn't make the rules! Talk to God about it!".
But one other thing: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all joined at the hip, as all are Abrahamic from the get-go. As I understand it, it all has to do with inheritance and who is legitimately worthy. Of course, Ishmael is the illegitimate son of Abraham and the house servant Hagar, and Ishmael is the father of Islam. So I think Christianity does not recognize Islam as having the right of inheritance. In fact, Christianity is always pushing the bloodline of Jesus and the 7 tribes of Israel, and on and on to define legitimacy. I suspect that this is at the root of the Christian/Islamic conflict which is going on even today.
Oh, this should be good. Do, please, tell us how to determine one from the other? I do so hope it's more than "things I personally like and approve of are freedoms, things I personally dislike or am made uncomfortable by are licensious"?
You notice I did not offer a distinction myself, not having thought it through. So I asked for someone to come to my aid, here. But a shot in the dark would be something like: Freedom is what the founding fathers had in mind; ie those rights that are 'self-evident' and natural as belonging inherently to every human being. Now such a 'free person' wants to purchase an automobile and drive across the country. He needs to to apply for a permit and pay a fee to his governing body who will grant him a license to do so. So freedom is something you already have; license is granted to you by a governing body.
Feel free to extrapolate, dismantle, or jeer as you may. Some may even say they are the same thing.
A license (American English) or licence (British English)[1] is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something (as well as the document of that permission or permit).
Rights are legal, social, or ethicalprinciples of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, for they are regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived".
) defending myself here. Having said that, we've just had the most horrific discoveries where one Police Force has been witholding evidence which could have assisted in the defence of hundreds, yes hundreds of rape defendants. Bloody disgusting. 
