On 25-3-2009 1:07, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote: 
> BTW, fictional TV shows about court cases are much more exciting than 
> the real thing. :-) Don't judge what happens based on what you see on 
> american TV.

We have them here also dumped on us in large quantities, but I don't 
watch them.

>> But they are not the same organization, at least here (and are 
>> appointed and not elected). But this is indeed the weak point for some 
>> countries.
> 
> You get the facts judged by the judge, yes? And doesn't the government 
> pay the judge?

That's your American background kicking in again ;) You won't believe 
how often the government here will fund two (or more) parties with 
opposite goals, just to get a balance. If e.g. the public TV channels 
would not do its job of criticizing the government enough, I guess they 
would change the law to make sure they do.
It is probably a good way to get a judge angry when you meet him in 
private to suggest that because they are paid by the government that 
they will do what the government wants. Most likely you will get a 
speech on how the politics is failing to make decisions and leaves the 
difficult problems to the judges.

>>> The standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the cop 
>>> says you did it, and you say you didn't, and the cop can show that 
>>> you've lied, 
>>
>> If you lied about something relevant, I agree with you. If it is about 
>> general lying I think I don't agree. That comes very soon too close to 
>> character assassination.
> 
> No. You don't get to go into "general lying" in the courtroom. That's 
> "Objection: relevance."

I am sorry but most of the examples that were used in the video were 
about irrelevant remarks IMO.

> Now, sometimes it happens anyway, of course. Some lady gets raped, and 
> the prosecution asks "what were you wearing at the time?" and tries to 
> make a case that she was "asking for it."  But there are few situations 
> where you can actually support that sort of thing, and of course the 
> defense is going to cut that argument to shreds.
> 
>> I think normally they don't work against the people here, I think. I 
>> don't have much experience but usually they try to find a reason not 
>> to have to intervene.
> 
> That would be cool.

Well, it makes it very hard to get rid of a group of youths that 
continuously make noise in front of your house. Or off that big truck 
that is parked in front of your house for years. Comment of the police 
when we asked them if they could do something about it as the neighbour 
(about 5 house around the corner) refused to place it somewhere else: 
'we know it is illegal, but as long as the council has not appointed a 
place for him to park we won't do anything about it. Anyway I don't 
think it takes up a relevant part of your view on the river from where 
you live and no I am not going inside to see myself.'

>>>> The suggestion in the video is that the police does not need real 
>>>> evidence but can get convictions by twisting someones words into 
>>>> "evidence".
>>>
>>> Admitting you committed the crime is, indeed, evidence. How much they 
>>> have to "twist" the words is something determined by the jury.
>>
>> Who are not professionally trained to weight the evidence.
> 
> This is true. On the other hand, if the evidence isn't valid, the judge 
> doesn't let the jury see it, either. In theory, at least. I think you're 
> underestimating how savvy people are, too.

I just go by the opinion of this law professor and the police officer 
that did the second part of the lecture.

>> possible suspect. He could hear him scream through the walls.
> 
> And again, that's the police and not the courts. 

It was only a (partly unrelated, I knew) story, that is all.

Post a reply to this message