No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court

No right to lawyer during questioning, says top court

www.thestar.com

OTTAWA—The American Miranda rule that gives a suspect the right to have a lawyer present during questioning has no place here, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

In three related decisions, a sharply divided court fine-tuned the rules on suspects’ right to counsel.

In the main case, the justices ruled 5-4 that the Charter of Rights does not confer a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.

That means Miranda, a staple of TV cop shows where lawyers whisper to their clients while detectives ask questions, does not apply.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is stinking outrageous. Those sons of bit**** makes me sick.

YOU CALL YOURSELF SUPREME COURT JUDGES? YOU ARE JUST A BUNCH OF TRAITORS.

STINKING SCUM.

Time to boot our own Bush, STEPHEN HARPER FROM OFFICE PRONTO who nominated those TRAITORS IN ROBES.

Seriously I expected more from CANADIAN JUDGES... But it seems they've been bought and paid for...

What's next? SECRET DETENTION? TORTURE? NO TRIAL?

www.thestar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Vitchilo


Well, as i understand it it really means that the cops can continue to try and question you without your lawyer being present. You are under no obligation to answer. So the right to avoid self incrimination is still valid. If ever put in this situation simply refuse to answer any questions without counsel present.

Really, if your smart, you will NEVER volunteer information to any cop at any time. When they claim you would answer if you don't have anything to hide, simply maintain you want to have counsel present. Don't let them get you into a defensive match.

..Ex

reply to post by Vitchilo


All that is already going on dude,
it's called crime prevention.
You know, "detaining" people out of
fear that they "might" commit a crime,
and throwing them in nut houses for an
unknown amount of time because they
"might" have a mental illness.
Then after you shat your pants enough,
they let you go like nothing happened.
That's what you get for exercising your free speech in Canada.

reply to post by Vitchilo


This really does surprise me.
The Canadian Legal system is modelled on British Common Law and the right to legal representation whilst under questioning is a cornerstone of British Law.

I'll be amazed if this isn't challenged by the legal profession, especially as I'm sure it's a nice little earner for them!

Originally posted by v3_exceed
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Well, as i understand it it really means that the cops can continue to try and question you without your lawyer being present. You are under no obligation to answer. So the right to avoid self incrimination is still valid. If ever put in this situation simply refuse to answer any questions without counsel present.

Really, if your smart, you will NEVER volunteer information to any cop at any time. When they claim you would answer if you don't have anything to hide, simply maintain you want to have counsel present. Don't let them get you into a defensive match.

..Ex

Research "MK ULTRA". See how innocent simply asking questions, repeatedly, can be.

The Miranda Rights are utilized by law enforcement to make you aware of your rights as a US citizen. Since we are talking about Canada, US laws do not apply. If we're going to get up in arms because Canada does not practice US laws, then we sure as hell need to be upset about how Mexico law enforcement extorts money from innocent people they rob.

I see nothing to get upset about here. In Canada, suspects have a right to a lawyer. That's their law. When we try to impose US laws on other countries by force, that is how we end up fighting wars in other countries we don't belong in. Just think of how WE (US citizens) would be outraged if another country's military came over here and physically forced us to change our ways to theirs under threat of violence and death.

As long as the laws are not inhumane, cruel to animals or destructive the planet by other means, each country needs to be able to exist according to their OWN laws and regulations.

Originally posted by Nivcharah
The Miranda Rights are utilized by law enforcement to make you aware of your rights as a US citizen. Since we are talking about Canada, US laws do not apply. If we're going to get up in arms because Canada does not practice US laws, then we sure as hell need to be upset about how Mexico law enforcement extorts money from innocent people they rob.

I see nothing to get upset about here. In Canada, suspects have a right to a lawyer. That's their law. When we try to impose US laws on other countries by force, that is how we end up fighting wars in other countries we don't belong in. Just think of how WE (US citizens) would be outraged if another country's military came over here and physically forced us to change our ways to theirs under threat of violence and death.

As long as the laws are not inhumane, cruel to animals or destructive the planet by other means, each country needs to be able to exist according to their OWN laws and regulations.

edit on 10/8/2010 by Nivcharah because: typo

This has nothing to do with US laws. This has to do with the rights of man.

Originally posted by v3_exceed
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Well, as i understand it it really means that the cops can continue to try and question you without your lawyer being present. You are under no obligation to answer. So the right to avoid self incrimination is still valid. If ever put in this situation simply refuse to answer any questions without counsel present.

Really, if your smart, you will NEVER volunteer information to any cop at any time. When they claim you would answer if you don't have anything to hide, simply maintain you want to have counsel present. Don't let them get you into a defensive match.

..Ex

Indeed you should never volunteer information that could incriminate you but that does not mean they can't get information from you one way or another if they really want to. If that fails they can plant evidence on your premise and/or claim false testimony from supposed eye-witnesses. In "extreme cases" they can use "soft torture" techniques such as sleep deprivation, inject weird substances into your body, continous long interogations with or without a lawyer, etc.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


US law ≠ "the rights of man"

The right to a lawyer during questioning is not a fundamental human right as far as I know, nor should it be.

This is disturbing. It's presumptuous on the part of the subject as it implies guilt. Not allowing a mediation throughout the process allows the accusers to assume away from objectivity and could easily be used as a point of leverage.

I don't like it; but there are many things that I dislike about our current system. We are a bunch of children running around proclaiming superiority over others based on archaic modalities...and some of our 'authority figures' are manipulated shills who have power only because there office is stigmatized to present it...rather than any real consideration.

C'est La Vie...I ignore the system mostly anyways...

Originally posted by Soshh
The right to a lawyer during questioning is not a fundamental human right as far as I know, nor should it be.

If a man or woman is truly guilty than there should be no issue. I am concerned with innocent people getting caught in the crossfire and victimless crimes being prosecuted with the same association as impositional crimes.

Too many people assume things based on circumstance and inapplicable, pre-ordained rhetoric...that is the danger...

Originally posted by Vitchilo

This is stinking outrageous. Those sons of bit**** makes me sick.

YOU CALL YOURSELF SUPREME COURT JUDGES? YOU ARE JUST A BUNCH OF TRAITORS.

STINKING SCUM.

Time to boot our own Bush, STEPHEN HARPER FROM OFFICE PRONTO who nominated those TRAITORS IN ROBES.

Seriously I expected more from CANADIAN JUDGES... But it seems they've been bought and paid for...

What's next? SECRET DETENTION? TORTURE? NO TRIAL?

You sound like the Republicans down in the states. You want to boot stephen harper out? Who ya gonna replace him with? Dion? Layton?

It's FAR easier to be against something than to spend them time to be informed enough to be FOR a functional alternative.

Also, your unelected representative of the Queen, the Governor General, can pro-rogue congress any time he or she pleases, so you dont even have a democracy.

You got a lot of work to do. Better get to it!

Originally posted by Soshh
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

US law ≠ "the rights of man"

The right to a lawyer during questioning is not a fundamental human right as far as I know, nor should it be.

To right to not bear witness against yourself. That IS a basic, fundamental, human right.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
This is disturbing. It's presumptuous on the part of the subject as it implies guilt. Not allowing a mediation throughout the process allows the accusers to assume away from objectivity and could easily be used as a point of leverage.

I don't like it; but there are many things that I dislike about our current system. We are a bunch of children running around proclaiming superiority over others based on archaic modalities...and some of our 'authority figures' are manipulated shills who have power only because there office is stigmatized to present it...rather than any real consideration.

C'est La Vie...I ignore the system mostly anyways...

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” Plato

"As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom." - Pythagoras

I fully believe both.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
If a man or woman is truly guilty than there should be no issue. I am concerned with innocent people getting caught in the crossfire and victimless crimes being prosecuted with the same association as impositional crimes.

Too many people assume things based on circumstance and inapplicable, pre-ordained rhetoric...that is the danger...

My main issue with this right is that it allows people who -are- guilty to pervert the course of justice. Also, I don't think that it is sensible to have a law which supports the idea that a police force will try to obtain false confessions, plant evidence on innocent people or otherwise act unfairly. I accept that it happens whether by accident or not, but this law almost condones it.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” Plato

"As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom." - Pythagoras

I fully believe both.

so your household has no rules?

your children have no consequence for breaking any rules?

laws are merely an aspect of society.

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” Plato

"As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom." - Pythagoras

I fully believe both.

so your household has no rules?

your children have no consequence for breaking any rules?

laws are merely an aspect of society.

My children are not men. they are children, still gaining the mental processing grids to act prudently and logically. Semantics is a boring game....must we play?

Laws are necessary only to allow people recourse to recover damages. All other laws, for the most part, impose some amount of tyranny on The People.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
Then how can the police force you to take a breathalyzer test and if you refuse charge you with impedeing a police investigation?(automatic 1 year liscence suspension here)Isn't making someone submit to the breathalyzer the same as making someone give evidence against themself?

Originally posted by abe froman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Then how can the police force you to take a breathalyzer test and if you refuse charge you with impedeing a police investigation?(automatic 1 year liscence suspension here)Isn't making someone submit to the breathalyzer the same as making someone give evidence against themself?

Yup. That is my belief.

Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.".