• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Right to lawyer struck down in Canada

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A while back I was accused of not criticizing my own country. Well, here you go.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/08/supreme-court-charter-right-lawyer-interview.htm

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that a person questioned by police in connection with a criminal case does not have the right to have a lawyer present during the interview.

In a trio of related decisions, the Supreme Court also said a suspect doesn't have the right to re-consult with a lawyer midway through an interview, unless the situation in the interview has changed significantly.

The only thing Canadian suspects have a right to now is to remain silent. One step further to fascism.

What is happening to rights in the western world???
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A while back I was accused of not criticizing my own country. Well, here you go.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/08/supreme-court-charter-right-lawyer-interview.htm



The only thing Canadian suspects have a right to now is to remain silent. One step further to fascism.

What is happening to rights in the western world???

To be honest, the right to remain silent is all you really need.......
If you say, "I want my lawyer present" that is usually an interview ender in itself. And your going to need to remain silent afterwards anyways, so *shrug* I don't see the big deal.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To be honest, the right to remain silent is all you really need.......
If you say, "I want my lawyer present" that is usually an interview ender in itself. And your going to need to remain silent afterwards anyways, so *shrug* I don't see the big deal.

You don't see the big deal with having the right to representation taken away?!?!?!

:doh

Saying you want your lawyer present is not an incrimination... not yet anyway! But at this rate I can see how it will end up being that way. And there is a big difference between exercising silence because your lawyer advises you to, and doing it because you are under the duress of an interrogation that is intentionally trying to pry a confession from you regardless if you are innocent or guilty.

In Canada you can be held up to 48 hours for questioning. Not having access to a lawyer during that entire time is tantamount to fascism and I am so ashamed of my country over this.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You don't see the big deal with having the right to representation taken away?!?!?!
Representation in Court should be required. Representation in an interview isn't really needed.



Saying you want your lawyer present is not an incrimination... not yet anyway!
I haven't said otherwise. Usually someone stating they want their lawyer is the end of an interrogation. (I think I already said this).
And there is a big difference between exercising silence because your lawyer advises you to, and doing it because you are under the duress of an interrogation that is intentionally trying to pry a confession from you regardless if you are innocent or guilty.
Now your just being unreasonable. Accusing the entire law enforcement profession of trying to get confessions from people who didn't actually commit the crime. Its hard to debate with people who have this type of cop hater attitude so I'll stop here until you start being more reasonable.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Representation in Court should be required. Representation in an interview isn't really needed.

Calling it an interview is equivocation. If you are being held by police and questioned for 48 hours, it is an interrogation and you should have the right to representation. I can't believe we are even arguing about this. Having a lawyer present while police question you has been a cherished right for over 100 years now.

I haven't said otherwise. Usually someone stating they want their lawyer is the end of an interrogation. (I think I already said this).

That's not true. The lawyer doesn't have a right to end the interview, but to advise the client on how to answer questions or to remain silent if necessary. Lawyers generally serve the function of ensuring that a suspect does not incriminate themselves, and that is something a suspect might not know they are doing without legal counsel, regardless if they are innocent or guilty. The fact is, when in the throes of the justice system, lawyers are the experts, and that is why people are entitled to have them around.

Now your just being unreasonable. Accusing the entire law enforcement profession of trying to get confessions from people who didn't actually commit the crime. Its hard to debate with people who have this type of cop hater attitude so I'll stop here until you start being more reasonable.

It doesn't matter if some do it and some don't, the fact is that it can and does happen, and having legal representation is one of the defenses. The entire system is supposed to be setup to ensure innocence until guilt can be proven. Protection of the individual is paramount. Ease of police work is secondary to individual rights.

The fact that the Canadian Supreme Court struck down the right to legal access demonstrates that the scales have tipped seriously to favour the power of authority over the rights of the individual.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Calling it an interview is equivocation. If you are being held by police and questioned for 48 hours, it is an interrogation and you should have the right to representation. I can't believe we are even arguing about this. Having a lawyer present while police question you has been a cherished right for over 100 years now.



That's not true. The lawyer doesn't have a right to end the interview, but to advise the client on how to answer questions or to remain silent if necessary. Lawyers generally serve the function of ensuring that a suspect does not incriminate themselves, and that is something a suspect might not know they are doing without legal counsel, regardless if they are innocent or guilty. The fact is, when in the throes of the justice system, lawyers are the experts, and that is why people are entitled to have them around.
I think its your lack of knowledge and understanding in how police interviews (interrogations, whatever the word is you want to call it, its all the same) work that is causing your own misunderstanding.

The lawyer doesn't have the right to end the interview. However, telling police that you want to have a lawyer present = end of interview until lawyer appears, OR, end of interview (period). In the case of this particular outcry you are having... If one no longer has the right to have a lawyer present during an interview then this is what they do...
"I wish to invoke my right to silence until I am allowed to have a lawyer present during this questioning."

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!

:roll:

Its absolutely redundant, and thus not really that big of a deal.



It doesn't matter if some do it and some don't, the fact is that it can and does happen, and having legal representation is one of the defenses. The entire system is supposed to be setup to ensure innocence until guilt can be proven. Protection of the individual is paramount. Ease of police work is secondary to individual rights.
Blah blah blah Hyperbole Blah Blah Blah. Your starting to sound like another poster on here. You are up in arms over something that is redundant. Something you don't even understand, yet are trying to act the expert on.

The fact that the Canadian Supreme Court struck down the right to legal access demonstrates that the scales have tipped seriously to favour the power of authority over the rights of the individual.
And how is that exactly? If one still has the right to remain silent, then they just remain ****ing silent.
Or state that they wish to invoke their right to remain silent until they have spoken with, or are given the opportunity to have counsel present.

Striking down the "right to counsel" doesn't mean that police CANNOT have counsel present with a defendant or suspect if they are questioning them. It means that they don't have to stop attempting to solicit questions from someone who has demanded to have a lawyer present. One must stick to their decision to not open their ****ing mouth until counsel is present. Eventually, police will get tired of getting the silent treatment and either allow counsel to be present or end the interview.

The citizens of Canada have lost very little. Nobody can force you to open your mouth and talk.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think its your lack of knowledge and understanding in how police interviews (interrogations, whatever the word is you want to call it, its all the same) work that is causing your own misunderstanding.

Hardly.

The lawyer doesn't have the right to end the interview.

I know this and already stated such.

However, telling police that you want to have a lawyer present = end of interview until lawyer appears, OR, end of interview (period).

Temporarily, sure. And the problem with that is...? It is ensuring the legal rights of the individual, so a delay is acceptable.

In the case of this particular outcry you are having... If one no longer has the right to have a lawyer present during an interview then this is what they do...
"I wish to invoke my right to silence until I am allowed to have a lawyer present during this questioning."

The lawyer also serves an additional function: to be a witness to the interrogation process. Are you seriously so pro-police that you are blinded to the abuses that can happen in a non-recorded police interview?

Furthermore, you may have information which may be helpful to police but how can you use it if you're not sure it won't be manipulated to mean your guilt?

There are so many variables involved, all of which can be figured out with a lawyer present.

Its absolutely redundant, and thus not really that big of a deal.

I'm beginning to think it's you who doesn't understand the way police interrogations work.

Blah blah blah Hyperbole Blah Blah Blah. Your starting to sound like another poster on here. You are up in arms over something that is redundant. Something you don't even understand, yet are trying to act the expert on.

Oh I see... going for personal attacks now are we?

I'm not being a pseudo-expert on anything. I am familiar with my rights as a citizen, as every person should be, and I know what it means to employ them. No longer having access to legal representation during interrogation is a big deal. Sorry you can't see that, but I'm glad you're not Canadian. One less ignorant voice in the chorus that wants to shut down individual rights.

And how is that exactly? If one still has the right to remain silent, then they just remain ****ing silent.

Police interrogators are experts at getting you to talk. They are usually trained psychologists. They have all sorts of techniques. While in an interrogation room, you don't have the right to use the bathroom, have food or water, sleep, medication, or any comforts. Those in of themselves can be used against you to demand that you talk. Desperate people talk.

I think you are arrogant in presuming you know the boundaries of police power and abilities. The point of having a lawyer is so that the boundaries are defined for you, and you know your rights and proper procedures.

Striking down the "right to counsel" doesn't mean that police CANNOT have counsel present with a defendant or suspect if they are questioning them.

You're not getting it. That's not the point. The point is that it gives the police the power to decide if you get counsel or not; and not YOU. You don't get the inherent right to ask for counsel.

It means that they don't have to stop attempting to solicit questions from someone who has demanded to have a lawyer present.

That's not all it means. It also means that they can decide that you don't get legal counsel AT ALL, period, regardless if the situation may warrant it or not. Legal counsel may be the difference between you getting booked for a crime you didn't commit and going free.

One must stick to their decision to not open their ****ing mouth until counsel is present. Eventually, police will get tired of getting the silent treatment and either allow counsel to be present or end the interview.

Or they will break you with the numerous techniques at their disposal, such as deprivation, intimidation, harassment, degradation, etc. You think all people have the mental grit to withstand that? You are arrogant.

The citizens of Canada have lost very little. Nobody can force you to open your mouth and talk.

See above.

If police are just doing their job then there should be no problem having a lawyer present. This law is about protecting police and giving them more power. Legal representation is about ensuring the rights of SUSPECTS (note: not criminals), and any free society that defends the innocent from undue incursions of power knows this.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
To be honest, the right to remain silent is all you really need.......
If you say, "I want my lawyer present" that is usually an interview ender in itself. And your going to need to remain silent afterwards anyways, so *shrug* I don't see the big deal.

Cops get a lot of leeway, they are allowed to lie to the potential perp, to extract information.
The least a person should have access to is a lawyer.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Cops get a lot of leeway, they are allowed to lie to the potential perp, to extract information.
The least a person should have access to is a lawyer.

LOL.......

Im sorry, but lying to a person to try to extract information is nothing compared to lying to a cop to hide the fact that you raped a 12 year old.....
 

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
LOL.......
Im sorry, but lying to a person to try to extract information is nothing compared to lying to a cop to hide the fact that you raped a 12 year old.....

Which is, IMO, just as bad as cops absuing their power, when/where it happens.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,138
Reaction score
21,537
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Which is, IMO, just as bad as cops absuing their power, when/where it happens.

You think raping a 12 year old is as bad pulling someone over for no reason? You need to get your priorities checked.
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You think raping a 12 year old is as bad pulling someone over for no reason? You need to get your priorities checked.


What about falsely imprisoning someone for raping a 12 yr old girl?

Like recently happened here in Texas.
 

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
You think raping a 12 year old is as bad pulling someone over for no reason? You need to get your priorities checked.

:roll:

I meant that the clearly guilty trying to evade being caught is just as bad as power tripping, as opposed to one being more morally wrong as the other.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Representation in Court should be required. Representation in an interview isn't really needed.



I haven't said otherwise. Usually someone stating they want their lawyer is the end of an interrogation. (I think I already said this). Now your just being unreasonable. Accusing the entire law enforcement profession of trying to get confessions from people who didn't actually commit the crime. Its hard to debate with people who have this type of cop hater attitude so I'll stop here until you start being more reasonable.

So you wouldn't have a problem if this happened here?
What is a Centrist anyway?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Representation in Court should be required. Representation in an interview isn't really needed.

Huh??? What you are thinking? Oh, yeah. You're cop. ;-)
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL.......

Im sorry, but lying to a person to try to extract information is nothing compared to lying to a cop to hide the fact that you raped a 12 year old.....

It matters if the person the cops are lying to is INNOCENT. That's what you're not getting. The system is supposed to have an innocent until proven guilty mentality. All of the protections are in place to protect INNOCENT people.

Are you a cop?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It matters if the person the cops are lying to is INNOCENT. That's what you're not getting. The system is supposed to have an innocent until proven guilty mentality. All of the protections are in place to protect INNOCENT people.

Are you a cop?

I don't get how someone lying to me is going to falsely make me confess to doing something........
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Temporarily, sure. And the problem with that is...? It is ensuring the legal rights of the individual, so a delay is acceptable.
I don't get this part.... Apparently you are thinking that ending the interview is a "bad" thing. If one does not want to incriminate themselves, they state that they wish to remain silent until a lawyer is present and will not answer any questions. Then they re-iterate that if the Detective do not want to afford them the opportunity to have their lawyer present, then they won't be answering any questions. And then stick to their guns. Don't see what the problem is here unless you are a paranoid freak who thinks all cops are going to beat info out of people like some god damned Dirty Harry movie or some other paranoid bull****. If thats the type of mentality Im debating here. I"ll leave. I don't debate with irrational people.





The lawyer also serves an additional function: to be a witness to the interrogation process. Are you seriously so pro-police that you are blinded to the abuses that can happen in a non-recorded police interview?

Furthermore, you may have information which may be helpful to police but how can you use it if you're not sure it won't be manipulated to mean your guilt?

There are so many variables involved, all of which can be figured out with a lawyer present.



I'm beginning to think it's you who doesn't understand the way police interrogations work.
Im a police officer, and have conducted them.... Uhhhh............... Wait. Maybe its YOU who doesn't know jack about the interrogation process outside of what your stoner buddies told you while high or what you've seen in old Clint Eastwood movies.




Oh I see... going for personal attacks now are we?
Every time you use very very very isolated situations of a police officer abusing his power to mean we are all stupid crooked bastards... thats a personal attack on ME. So deal with it.


Police interrogators are experts at getting you to talk. They are usually trained psychologists.
Wrong. They are not trained psychologists.... :roll:
They have all sorts of techniques. While in an interrogation room, you don't have the right to use the bathroom, have food or water, sleep, medication, or any comforts. Those in of themselves can be used against you to demand that you talk. Desperate people talk.
Wrong. Again. Wait.... Maybe in OHHHH CAAAAANAADAAAAAA they can treat you like a prisoner of war but not here.

I think you are arrogant in presuming you know the boundaries of police power and abilities.
Im a police officer. Im very aware of the boundaries we deal with, which are much more limiting than you presume.
The point of having a lawyer is so that the boundaries are defined for you, and you know your rights and proper procedures.
The right to remain silent means the right to remain silent. Period. If you get tricked into talking. Too.... ****ing... bad.



You're not getting it. That's not the point. The point is that it gives the police the power to decide if you get counsel or not; and not YOU. You don't get the inherent right to ask for counsel.
And this is why you let them know that they won't be getting any answers to any of their questions until you have a lawyer present. Then... stick.. to.. your... guns.



That's not all it means. It also means that they can decide that you don't get legal counsel AT ALL, period, regardless if the situation may warrant it or not. Legal counsel may be the difference between you getting booked for a crime you didn't commit and going free.
No, they cannot prevent you from having legal counsel when you go to court...... Just during an interview. If one does not want to incriminate themselves, then they get a lawyer, who pretty much acts like an angel on their shoulder reminding them to keep their mouth shut. Yes, that angel on your shoulder is so important because people don't have any willpower to keep their own mouths shut.




Or they will break you with the numerous techniques at their disposal, such as deprivation, intimidation, harassment, degradation, etc. You think all people have the mental grit to withstand that? You are arrogant.
WHOAAAH DUUUDE... Duh cops be after me maaaaaan. :roll: This bull**** doesn't deserve a intelligent response. Paranoid much? This isn't the 1950s and its not a ****ing Dirty Harry Movie.




See above.

If police are just doing their job then there should be no problem having a lawyer present. This law is about protecting police and giving them more power. Legal representation is about ensuring the rights of SUSPECTS (note: not criminals), and any free society that defends the innocent from undue incursions of power knows this.

If you really think the cops are going all rogue and beating info out of people.... what makes you think the request for a lawyer is going to stop them from violating the already put in place restriction on beating people?

DuH!
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Which is, IMO, just as bad as cops absuing their power, when/where it happens.

So you don't think Detectives should be able to lie about the evidence they DO have to get a confession out of the guy who is guilty?

Innocent people don't admit to **** they didn't do, regardless of what a Detctive "says" about the evidence.
If they were going to admit to something they didn't do, they would do that regardless of the Detective lying about something.

And of course, when people do falsely admit to doing something that the circumstances made them seem to be the prime suspect, and its later proven they didn't do it. Its always the police to blame for not being better human lie detectors. :roll:
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What about falsely imprisoning someone for raping a 12 yr old girl?

Like recently happened here in Texas.

Depends on the circumstances..........
As I pointed out in my above post... if someone is so weak minded to admit to doing something they didn't do, and the rest of the investigation put that person in the area with a motive/means to do the crime... how are the police supposed to "just know" any better?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Huh??? What you are thinking? Oh, yeah. You're cop. ;-)

Ever been in an interview?

Every time someone asks for a lawyer. It pretty much means the interview doesn't happen, unless its for a capital crime. For something as small as "Hit and Run" or "DWI" or "Assault on a Female" etc. Im not going to wait around trying to get a lawyer present to ask questions, Im better off not asking them, I don't feel like wasting my time for such small change ****.

If the interview doesn't happen, that means you don't incriminate yourself.

My removing this lawyer requirement..... All it means is that you have to stick to your guns and not open your fat lip. You still have the right to remain silent. Inform the Detectives that you do not wish to speak without a lawyer present, and that you will retain your right to silence until such time as a lawyer can be afforded. Then stick to your guns and keep your mouth shut.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It matters if the person the cops are lying to is INNOCENT. That's what you're not getting. The system is supposed to have an innocent until proven guilty mentality. All of the protections are in place to protect INNOCENT people.

Are you a cop?

What does it matter if they are innocent? Innocent people don't admit to doing **** they didn't do.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
LOL.......

Im sorry, but lying to a person to try to extract information is nothing compared to lying to a cop to hide the fact that you raped a 12 year old.....

Sorry but the system is deliberately set up to make the job of cops and prosecutors difficult.
To err on the side of caution.

If you don't like that, I suggest looking into a new line of work.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't get how someone lying to me is going to falsely make me confess to doing something........

Some people have been pressured into making confessions based on the lies of police officers.
They mentally break down because of the fear of worse consequences that police officers propose, if the perp doesn't immediately confess.

It's called duress and in any other environment of law, it's unlawful.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry but the system is deliberately set up to make the job of cops and prosecutors difficult.
To err on the side of caution.

If you don't like that, I suggest looking into a new line of work.

Im perfectly happy with my line of work. Nothing here has made my job more easy or difficult, cause its in Canada.

But even if it were in the U.S.... It still would not make my job more easy... probably more difficult in the end, depending on how literal one took the "right to remain silent" as to not even saying that they are invoking said rights, and instead starring like we have a dick growing out of our forehead.


Unless you've murdered someone, this right to a lawyer thing doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyhow, because most of the time the interview will just be called off instead of waiting on a lawyer to show up.
THAT is why its a moot point.

THAT is why as long as you Canadians say, "I wish to invoke my right to remain silent until I can have a lawyer present. If you wish to recieve any answers to your questions, I need to have a lawyer present first. I understand this is not my right. But I will remain silent until so."
And it is guaranteed that the interview will end at that point, and they can either book you on the evidence they do have.. or set you free. Either way, its over.

It changes nothing.
 
Top Bottom