andrel wrote:
> You may be right that it explains the fifth amendment, but to me as a 
> foreigner it mainly emphasizes the idea that the US criminal system is 
> too easy to misuse to get innocent people convicted.

I'm not sure that's what he's saying there.  Indeed, I think there are lots 
and lots of guilty people who get away with it.

He's more saying "it can't help you to talk to the cops, because their job 
is to arrest you, not judge you."  He's saying "If you *are* guilty, stfu." 
He's saying "If you're not guilty, tell the judge, not the cop."

I *do* think our system is open to abuse. But it's mostly abuse *before* you 
get to the court room, methinks. It's cops arresting people without a good 
reason, or because they don't like your attitude, or etc. I don't think the 
judges or juries are particularly abusive.

> I think I prefer 
> our system without a jury (and the somewhat related plea bargaining, 
> something that is often quoted as a reason why you can not extradite a 
> person to the US, because there is no guarantee that they will get a 
> fair trial).

Welllll...  Depends what you mean by "fair trial."  The whole "fair" bit has 
been going downhill here, with the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" 
and all that sort of stuff. And most of the unfairness in those situations 
are when laws get passed to let people bypass the trials altogether - 
confiscating "suspected" drug money, or claiming people are "enemy 
combatants." And stuff like cops turning off video recorders while they do 
things they shouldn't be doing.

I think for normal everyday stuff - did you steal the car, did you shoot the 
boss - it's a pretty fair system.

> I have to admit that I don't know exactly how the system here works, 

Most people don't know how the system works here either. That's why people 
have to make a video saying "Hey, dumbass, the cop's job is to arrest you, 
and its the judge's job to run the trial."

> what they tell you, what they record and to what extend a police officer 
> may lie or withhold information, but as far as I know there are not many 
> reasons for an average person to have to know that before being the 
> subject of an investigation. I may be wrong (but don't extrapolate any 
> US experience to assume I am).

Yes. That's why the video is "STFU, and get a lawyer who knows the rules." 
If you can't afford the lawyer, the government will hire one for you. He'll 
be really busy, but you'll have a lawyer. :-)  Since you're guilty until 
proven innocent, you need to just STFU unless your lawyer thinks saying 
something will make things better.

> I am also not completely sure that in the Netherlands you can prosecute 
> a suspect for perjury.

Here, it has to be something fairly important. If your testimony puts 
someone in jail, and a year later you admit you lied, something like that.

> I vaguely remember that you can not even ask a 
> first degree family member questions that may result in a conviction. 

I know here spouses are excluded (unless you're a "terrorist" or something).

> yet, IANAL.

Me neither. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message