• 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

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.

Can you show me an example of someone lying about doing something they didn't do based on a lie? Or are you just spouting TV BS?
 

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
Can you show me an example of someone lying about doing something they didn't do based on a lie? Or are you just spouting TV BS?

Plea bargains are just this type of thing.
It's an admission of lesser guilt, in order to defer harsher sentencing, even if you didn't do something.
Just the threat of harsher penalties, can cause people to confess, when they would otherwise deny.

Here's a list of a few.

False confession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And another with people involved in the Innocence project.
24% of the people cleared by the innocence project, gave false confessions.
Why do you think that is?

http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Coerced False Confessions.pdf
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'd be more interested in cases that didn't involve stats from 1982, back when police didn't have ease of access to DNA evidence in order to disprove a confession obtained.

But no statistics will fully explain this situation. As claiming your confession was false (when it really wasn't) happens more often than you think as a defense to trying to get out of trouble.
 

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'd be more interested in cases that didn't involve stats from 1982, back when police didn't have ease of access to DNA evidence in order to disprove a confession obtained.

It doesn't really make any difference, the point is that it does happen.

But no statistics will fully explain this situation. As claiming your confession was false (when it really wasn't) happens more often than you think as a defense to trying to get out of trouble.

Sure it's used because prosecutors and police aren't all holy angels of the light.
That doesn't mean most of you guys are bad, but enough to cause problems.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It doesn't really make any difference, the point is that it does happen.

This has basically been the point I have been trying to get across the whole time, but Caine is being obtuse. I am not saying the entire law enforcement sector is corrupt or that interrogations are inherently bad, but the protections in place are to defend the innocent from instances of abuse of power and corruption.

I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

Caine, maybe you just aren't in favour of individual rights as much as I thought you were?
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't get how someone lying to me is going to falsely make me confess to doing something........

Easy. The cops tell a lie that make it sound like the person you love the most in the whole wide world is about to go down for something they may or may not have done.

So you confess to a crime you didn't commit to keep the nearest and dearest to you off the hook.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.

You don't have to beat someone to intimidate them into talking.

Aside from that, no system in which a person has to be with it enough to remember what their rights are while under duress is a just system.

You shouldn't have to "opt-in" to invoking your rights, you should have to "opt-out" of being protected by them.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Plea bargains are just this type of thing.
It's an admission of lesser guilt, in order to defer harsher sentencing, even if you didn't do something.

You're right, I forgot about that angle.

The worst part is how judges pretend like you absolutely positively shouldn't enter into a plea agreement unless you actually did the crime. It's not about reality, it's about how it looks on paper.

They know damn well that people are constantly pummeled into taking pleas, they just don't want to admit it for the record.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'd be more interested in cases that didn't involve stats from 1982, back when police didn't have ease of access to DNA evidence in order to disprove a confession obtained.

Check out "Three Felonies a Day." The Feds have a closure rate of 90%, and of that 90%, 96% is because of plea deals.

They get plea deals because so many Federal laws are vague and open to interpretation, and penalties are so high, that you're better off taking a deal for a few years in a Federal pen than you are in fighting it out and risking spending the rest of your life in prison.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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.
I'm sorry that my right to a lawyer interferes with your donut break.

Get over it.

 
Last edited:

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Or the cops can tell you that they already have evidence which pins you to the crime, and if you confess now you can get a lesser sentence. So you freak out, not wanting to go to jail for 10 years, and you sign a confession to ensure you only get 2 years. You are still innocent, but with the threat of having your life taken away, you will do anything in desperation.

Or they claim that they have a second suspect in the next room who knows you and knows you were at the crime, and they tell you that the first one to confess gets the lesser jail time.

The reason why these claims can coerce false confessions is that, even though you are innocent, you know it's entirely possible that the court system can **** you over if you can't prove reasonable doubt. It happens all the time, especially if you can't afford a good lawyer.

The point is that innocence should have the most protection. If the cops have such conclusive proof that you are guilty, then they shouldn't feel threatened by your rights to a lawyer. The lawyer won't matter, you're still going to go down.

The onus should never be on the suspect to ensure that their innocence gets preserved; the onus is on the POLICE to provide evidence of probable cause so that charges can be pressed. If the police can't do that, they have no business pressing an innocent person for non-existent confessions or information, and that is the precise reason why rights to a lawyer are needed.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This has basically been the point I have been trying to get across the whole time, but Caine is being obtuse. I am not saying the entire law enforcement sector is corrupt or that interrogations are inherently bad, but the protections in place are to defend the innocent from instances of abuse of power and corruption.

I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

Caine, maybe you just aren't in favour of individual rights as much as I thought you were?

Its not hard to understand.
I see a 'loss' of a right to counsel.
I don't see how this changes the fact that you still do not have to self incriminate.

I see false confessions as a sign of mental health issues in the person admitting to doing something that they didn't have anything to do with more so than OMFG ABUSE OF POWER!
The false confessions gained in this day and age are usually obtained without the knowledge by police that they are in fact false.
I don't consider someone doing something that they don't have any idea they are doing as OMFG ABUSE OF POWER!!ZOMG!

Its the job of investigators to
"Convict the Guilty and Exonerate the Innocent!"

Not.
"Convict someone! Who cares who!"

Law Enforcement has changed ALOT since the 1970s and 80s.

But for some reason all we seem to hear about is **** that happened in the 70s and 80s like its happening today.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Easy. The cops tell a lie that make it sound like the person you love the most in the whole wide world is about to go down for something they may or may not have done.

So you confess to a crime you didn't commit to keep the nearest and dearest to you off the hook.

And your a ****ing idiot for doing so..

That is all.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You don't have to beat someone to intimidate them into talking.

Aside from that, no system in which a person has to be with it enough to remember what their rights are while under duress is a just system.

You shouldn't have to "opt-in" to invoking your rights, you should have to "opt-out" of being protected by them.

Unless you specifically state you wish to invoke your rights, how can we be sure?

We aren't ****ing mind readers, if we were, this whole system wouldn't be necessary.... :doh:
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Check out "Three Felonies a Day." The Feds have a closure rate of 90%, and of that 90%, 96% is because of plea deals.

They get plea deals because so many Federal laws are vague and open to interpretation, and penalties are so high, that you're better off taking a deal for a few years in a Federal pen than you are in fighting it out and risking spending the rest of your life in prison.

Do you know much about plea deals?
They are used to keep **** out of court when there is enough evidence to convict someone of some part of the crime. It saves time on the court docket.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you know much about plea deals?
They are used to keep **** out of court when there is enough evidence to convict someone of some part of the crime. It saves time on the court docket.

I know plenty about Federal plea deals.

They are used to intimidate someone into going quietly, regardless of whether or not they are innocent.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Unless you specifically state you wish to invoke your rights, how can we be sure?

I would've thought that it was kind of obvious -- until someone indicates that they're willing to relinquish their rights, you assume they're invoking them. Sort of like those nifty Miranda waivers. :lol:
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Its not hard to understand.
I see a 'loss' of a right to counsel.
I don't see how this changes the fact that you still do not have to self incriminate.

I see false confessions as a sign of mental health issues in the person admitting to doing something that they didn't have anything to do with more so than OMFG ABUSE OF POWER!
The false confessions gained in this day and age are usually obtained without the knowledge by police that they are in fact false.
I don't consider someone doing something that they don't have any idea they are doing as OMFG ABUSE OF POWER!!ZOMG!

Its the job of investigators to
"Convict the Guilty and Exonerate the Innocent!"

Not.
"Convict someone! Who cares who!"

Law Enforcement has changed ALOT since the 1970s and 80s.

But for some reason all we seem to hear about is **** that happened in the 70s and 80s like its happening today.

Thank you for showing up and demonstrating to everyone why the innocent must be protected. Police will never think that individual rights being removed is a problem because it's their job to catch suspects, obtain confessions, and press charges. The more easily you can do this, the better you are at your job. And in the case of corrupt cops or cops who routinely abuse power - and yes, they for sure exist - they definitely want suspects to have fewer rights because it lets them increase their little power kick.

I don't respect police anymore because they always tow the line of authority and they routinely speak out against the rights of citizens who are the very people they are sworn to protect. It's utter hypocrisy.
 

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
Its not hard to understand.
I see a 'loss' of a right to counsel.
I don't see how this changes the fact that you still do not have to self incriminate.

I see false confessions as a sign of mental health issues in the person admitting to doing something that they didn't have anything to do with more so than OMFG ABUSE OF POWER!
The false confessions gained in this day and age are usually obtained without the knowledge by police that they are in fact false.
I don't consider someone doing something that they don't have any idea they are doing as OMFG ABUSE OF POWER!!ZOMG!

Its the job of investigators to
"Convict the Guilty and Exonerate the Innocent!"

Not.
"Convict someone! Who cares who!"

Law Enforcement has changed ALOT since the 1970s and 80s.

But for some reason all we seem to hear about is **** that happened in the 70s and 80s like its happening today.

There is such a thing as psychological breaking point, where the brain stops resisting the stressers, in this case an interrogator, and admits to a crime.

Breaking point (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm sorry that my right to a lawyer interferes with your donut break.
Really? Is that what you got out of that?

Just had to throw a ****ing donut joke in there didn't you bitch?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Or the cops can tell you that they already have evidence which pins you to the crime, and if you confess now you can get a lesser sentence. So you freak out, not wanting to go to jail for 10 years, and you sign a confession to ensure you only get 2 years. You are still innocent, but with the threat of having your life taken away, you will do anything in desperation.

Or they claim that they have a second suspect in the next room who knows you and knows you were at the crime, and they tell you that the first one to confess gets the lesser jail time.

The reason why these claims can coerce false confessions is that, even though you are innocent, you know it's entirely possible that the court system can **** you over if you can't prove reasonable doubt. It happens all the time, especially if you can't afford a good lawyer.

The point is that innocence should have the most protection. If the cops have such conclusive proof that you are guilty, then they shouldn't feel threatened by your rights to a lawyer. The lawyer won't matter, you're still going to go down.

The onus should never be on the suspect to ensure that their innocence gets preserved; the onus is on the POLICE to provide evidence of probable cause so that charges can be pressed. If the police can't do that, they have no business pressing an innocent person for non-existent confessions or information, and that is the precise reason why rights to a lawyer are needed.

And if you are truly innocent..... You'll call them on their bluff.

Again, nobody should be admitting to anything they didn't actually do.

And, nobody said a police officer is threatened by someone's right to a lawyer. Last I recall its not the police officers who make the types of decisions as has been made in this case in Canada.

The "onus" that a person does not self incriminate IS on the individual themselves, not on the police.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would've thought that it was kind of obvious -- until someone indicates that they're willing to relinquish their rights, you assume they're invoking them. Sort of like those nifty Miranda waivers. :lol:

Sorry, we can't assume anything.

Officers all over the country have been sued for assuming ****. (not in this particular context obviously).

Besides, the supreme court has already upheld that we don't have to assume someone is invoking their right to remain silent. That came out this year.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Right, of course. That seems to be your answer to anybody whose rights have been trampled -- either they were guilty, or stupid.

I have zero sympathy for someone who confessed to a crime they didn't do, period.

Nobody is at fault in that situation except the person that confessed to a crime they didn't do.
 
Top Bottom