|
Post by mich64 on Nov 25, 2011 22:07:31 GMT
Split from: Blah+blah+blahI am sure there are many interesting stories that the members here could share about their encounters with their legal systems, would be an interesting thread perhaps. I liked your encounter bjd, I guess if she had the nerve to pickpocket, she had the nerve to lie about her language. It is just surprising sometimes because we do not have the knowledge/lifestyle of a criminal. Interesting questions Bixa, I hope Mark explains for us. I know that we are similiar to US courts in regards to having Municipal, Provincial (State) and Federal Law Courts. With the English Courts we share the attire, robes for the Lawyers/Solicitors (I believe they are the same here) and at least in Federal Court, I believe they also have to wear the wig along with their robes. In US Courts I do not believe the Lawyers have to wear robes. Cheers! Mich
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Nov 25, 2011 22:23:31 GMT
In Canada, we have Municipal (City/Township) Courts, Provincial Courts, Federal Court and the Supreme Courts. Depending where a crime was committed or the seriousness of the crime deems to which Court you are trialed in by a Judge with support of Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers. Some cases are in front of a Jury and some just in front of the Judge, again, depending on the crime or violation.
We also have Justices of the Peace and Mediators who assist the Courts with minimum violations, uncontested separations, marraiges, etc.
I have only attended the Court House 3 times in my lifetime. 1. Mum and Dad's divorce 2. Sister-in-Law's Marraige 3. Citizenship, watched some people become Canadian's!
Is your Countries Legal System different, if so how?
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 27, 2011 6:20:29 GMT
I'm embarrassed by how much this thread is showing me that I don't know about the legal system in my own country.
It seems that the Canadian and US systems are very similar.
What little I know about the Mexican system makes me think the "English model" systems are far better in terms of potential justice being being carried out. There are no jury trials in Mexico, which I find scary.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 27, 2011 6:53:36 GMT
Jury trials only exist in France for criminal cases that might get more than 10 years in prison, if I remember correctly. However, when we were briefed about being in a jury, we were told that cases where the jury members might be in danger, then only judges and magistrates attended. One example that was coming up a few months after I was on the jury was a big drug trafficking case.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Nov 27, 2011 7:47:26 GMT
I have attended a court, either Magistrates or Crown Court (where there is a jury) for the prosecution in everything from minor theft through assault and all the way up to a murder trial, and many motoring offences from speeding tickets to death by dangerous driving. I've also attended both Courts as a defendant for theft, assault and reckless driving (but not all at once) i.e. I was the accused.
After watching several videos of what happens in real life in an American court I can only say that I'm glad we British have a different set of rules and decorum. Also I think there are offences, usually financial, where it is meaningless to have a jury trial and it should be held in front of a panel of Judges. They are far too complicated for the general public to follow and understand fully. I'm banned from jury service anyway.
Another thing, bringing in evidence of past offences. Commonly you can't. There are exceptions (that I can't remember now) but I think the previous criminal history of any accused should be in the open. No matter the offence charged should be dealt with in isolation, usually it is relevant to the matter in hand. Too many times people say "I can't believe he'd do such a thing" and let it influence them when the influence should be that it is plain they've done this thing before, and often more than once.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Nov 28, 2011 2:03:30 GMT
I believe our Jury trials are only for Criminal cases here as well. I have never received a notice to attend Jury selection, but my husband has a few times. Now that he is a Firefighter, he just has to fill that in on the form and send it back in the Mail. For those who receive a Jury Selection notice, they must attend the Courthouse at the demanded time, employer's must adhere to their absence from work. If you do not attend, an arrest warrant will be issued for you. Quite a serious offence for not presenting yourself to the Court when requested to serve.
Mich
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2011 13:00:35 GMT
In July, the French parliament passed a law to extend jury trials to some less important cases, but I don't know when implementation will begin. Basically, it is just a gadget to show that we have a law-and-order government that is fighting crime, but there was no real demand or interest in such a thing on the part of the general public.
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Nov 29, 2011 0:06:14 GMT
I find that interesting Kerouac. In Canada the Government usually does not spend money on anything it does not have to, so I can definitely say our Government would never extend more courtesies to defendants. If the Government were to put more spending into our Legal system, I would like to see it go to help people obtain a Lawyer who cannot afford one, we call it Legal Aid here. Everyone should have the right to a defense. Mich
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Dec 1, 2011 9:55:38 GMT
In Germany there aren't any jury courts (not in the same sense as countries with the Anglo law system).
People are found guilty by the professional judges.
If a case is more important or is tried by a higher court, professional judges are added to reach a verdict.
In criminal cases we have 'lay judges' to assist the professional judge.
The constitutional court consists of 9 judges, I think.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 1, 2011 16:27:48 GMT
I was somewhat shocked by your statement, Mich, as I assumed Canada had the same public defender system as the US. When I looked it up, I was further shocked to find out that the system in the US has only existed since the 1960s.
Coincidentally, in the same article it was mentioned that "Germany does not provide indigent legal representation in criminal trials, although it does provide legal advice."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2012 16:10:50 GMT
Today I find myself wondering about the Russian court system.
|
|
|
Post by htmb on Aug 18, 2012 16:20:15 GMT
Today I find myself wondering about the Russian court system. Me, too. I need to go back and read article I saw in paper today.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 31, 2013 17:40:19 GMT
Last night I watched the final episode of Garrow's Law, a fictionalized account of a real person, William Garrow. Prior to 1732 prisoners on trial at the Old Bailey and other Assize courts for felony ... were not permitted to instruct counsel to defend them. Trials were heavily weighted in favour of the prosecution and perjury was rife. ... Garrow developed aggressive cross-examination to such an art and the lawyers captured the courtroom to such effect that the judge and jury ceased to participate in the conduct of the trial as they had hitherto. This led to adversary trial and rules of evidence, such as the presumption of innocence, which formed a culture of human rights that was later elevated into constitutional status by the US Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and spread around the globe. sourceThe series is beautifully mounted and well-acted which, along with the subject matter, makes for absorbing viewing. But it's the story behind some aspects of law that we now take for granted that makes it fascinating. I highly recommend the series, if you can find it online, in re-runs, or on dvd. This is some info & a link to The Old Bailey Online, ... a fully searchable, digitised collection of all surviving editions of the Old Bailey Proceedings from 1674 to 1913. It allows access to over 197,000 trials and biographical details of approximately 2,500 men and women executed at Tyburn, publicly available and completely free of charge.: www.shef.ac.uk/research/impact/stories/fca/14
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Feb 4, 2013 16:55:16 GMT
Actually our criminal justice system is much closer to the British system than the US system, except for the Federalist aspect (is this changing with devolution of Scotland and Wales? - Scotland always has had a somewhat distinct legal system).
So is civil justice in the English-speaking provinces, based on Common Law. In Québec, we have a Civil Code, making it closer to Louisiana and Mexico, and many other countries/jurisdictions with Latin-language backgrounds.
As for Legal Aid, it exists here but alas the ceiling on income levels means pretty much only people on social assistance (welfare) are eligible. When the system began, low-paid workers, pensioners etc would have been eligible, but most make just slightly too much; the ceiling hasn't kept pace with inflation. This is a terrible problem if anyone without much money finds themselves before the courts.
I don't think the problems with Family Law are restricted to any specific jurisdiction or country, but the adversarial system often means both former partners in a marriage wind up deep in debt, while it is a major source of income for law firms.
|
|
|
Post by anshjain97 on Mar 1, 2013 16:13:32 GMT
In #1, mich64 wrote: "Citizenship, watched some people become Canadian's" I used to think that it was the government, rather than the judiciary, that approved applications for citizenship??
Oh, I don't know much about the Indian judicial system. Except that time for justice is rather high and there is a shortage of judges. Besides the usual- lower courts, each state has a High Court while the highest court is the Supreme Court in the capital. Plus, the judiciary is independent of the executive, as in most other countries.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2013 17:43:24 GMT
Please tell that they don't all wear wigs, ansh!
Actually, it is interesting to see this thread again because in reply #6 I mentioned that they were moving towards more jury trials in France.
Well, now that our government has changed, it has been announced that an independent committee that has examined whether it is working or not recommends abandoning the system. The explanation is that having amateurs on the jury slows down the judicial system too much, because every little thing must be carefully explained to the jurors who have never heard of most of this stuff and do not even know what options they have in reaching a verdict.
The committee also stressed, rather than just saying "waste of time and tax money," that slowing down the court process was predjucial to the victims -- both the ones concerned by the trials in progress but also to all of the victims waiting for a court date. Since one of the fundamental concepts of the justice system is that it should be "swift" so that justice can be rendered as soon as possible, clearly juries using common citizens for complicated trials are creating an insurmountable contradiction, not just in France but in any other country using the system.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 1, 2013 20:54:36 GMT
every little thing must be carefully explained to the jurors who have never heard of most of this stuff and do not even know what options they have in reaching a verdict.
Well, that's nonsense! What kind of stuff is this supposed to be that "most people" will not understand? And the options are clearly explained by the judge and/or magistrates.
It's probably cheaper though -- you get paid for being on jury duty.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2013 21:08:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by anshjain97 on Mar 3, 2013 2:30:16 GMT
Do jurors have immunity, or can they be held accountable?
I haven't understood why a jury is used in the first place- are there really any advantages do the system of using them? How is their independence judged?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2013 6:59:19 GMT
I'm not totally sure, but I think that the judge could challenge a jury trial verdict in France. The "new" jury trials were rather limited in any case, judging things like sexual assault, extortion and armed robbery. There was a full day of "training" including a visit to a prison (this is probably what made the verdicts less severe!) and the jury sessions were limited to two crimes a day.
Actually, if they were to use only the unemployed on the juries, this might be a good way for them to occupy their time -- but the verdicts would certainly be even less severe.
|
|
|
Post by anshjain97 on Mar 3, 2013 11:02:22 GMT
Ah, I see. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Mar 3, 2013 16:02:49 GMT
I'd like to see defense counsel assigned randomly from a pool for criminal trials. There's really no fairness in the rich having access to better representation than the poor when faced with criminal charges. Is there?
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Mar 3, 2013 19:01:43 GMT
The system seems to be rather different in France (mind, that's only based on watching a trial scene in Engrenages, where someone was on trial for armed robbery and a panel of judges had "jurors" with them on the bench, and involved them in sentencing decisions).
In the UK system, juries are there only to apply the common sense of ordinary citizens as to whether the evidence put forward by the prosecution satisfied them "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused is guilty as charged. After both sides have had their say and presented their evidence and arguments to the jury, the judge summarises it and outlines what the law requires in the way of evidence and sends them out to consider the question. Jurors aren't involved in any argument as to what law applies, or what evidence is admissible (all such arguments are conducted in their absence and decided by the judge), nor do they have any say on sentencing - that too is the judge's responsibility, within national guidelines.
We have just had a trial collapse because the jury couldn't agree and asked the judge a whole lot of questions that made it clear there were at least some of them who simply wanted to ignore what the judge had told them about what they could and couldn't take into account, and import their own ideas (the trial turns on what constitutes "coercion" between a husband and wife), and a new trial has to take place with a new jury. But it's accepted that that's the price to pay for the presence of a jury to demonstrate that accused are not being stitched up by the professionals and the establishment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2013 20:18:36 GMT
While I certainly agree with suspicion against legal professionals, it is not at all because they are professionals but because of not knowing how professionals are chosen and therefore whether they are chosen properly. This is a point which I believe should be regulated one way or another some day.
The American habit of electing judges certainly seems totally dismal to me. I fear that fewer than 5% of the voters have checked the legal careers and qualifications of the judges before voting.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 4, 2013 19:08:59 GMT
Actually, professionals of all stripes are chosen & regulated, although like all systems, there are gaps and breakdowns. Lawyers have to pass bar exams and in court they're monitored by their peers & by judges. And supposedly judges are the best people for the job, based on their performance as lawyers. However, I agree completely with how bizarre it is for the public to vote judges into office. it has been announced that an independent committee that has examined whether it is working or not recommends abandoning the system. The explanation is that having amateurs on the jury slows down the judicial system too much, because every little thing must be carefully explained to the jurors who have never heard of most of this stuff and do not even know what options they have in reaching a verdict. The committee also stressed, rather than just saying "waste of time and tax money," that slowing down the court process was predjucial to the victims -- both the ones concerned by the trials in progress but also to all of the victims waiting for a court date. Since one of the fundamental concepts of the justice system is that it should be "swift" so that justice can be rendered as soon as possible, clearly juries using common citizens for complicated trials are creating an insurmountable contradiction, not just in France but in any other country using the system. I have to agree whole-heartedly with Bjd's assessment of the committee's judgment. At best it's specious & at worst it smacks of professional arrogance. Patrick's explanation of the reason for juries is perfect. No, it's not a perfect system, but the impulse behind it is sterling. Ansh's question about how the independence of jury members is determined is truly excellent. In the US, at least, counsel for the defense and the prosecuting attorney can each request dismissal of prospective jurors for perceived prejudice. Obviously in the real world, both are seeking jurors most likely to be sympathetic to their respective causes. This is about jury selection in the US: criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Reasons-for-Rejecting-Potential-Jurors.html
|
|
|
Post by anshjain97 on Mar 7, 2013 11:50:06 GMT
Thanks Bixa, that makes sense.
So it seems that juries are used only for criminal cases? What about cases between the govt and somebody?
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 8, 2013 15:44:26 GMT
Some states use juries in certain civil cases as well.
I believe that in criminal cases it is technically the government presenting the charges -- "the people vs. John Doe" -- so that before any case reaches the criminal courts, reason to bring charges against whom- or whatever has been determined by the public prosecutor's office.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2013 17:38:48 GMT
I'm curious as to how jury summons are issued by various municipalities. Here in NOLA they come by standard post, not registered mail. One could easily say they never got it. It's not proper serving. In NY it is issued by registered mail, one has to sign for it.
I remember getting a criminal court jury summons in the mail here the day before Hurricane Katrina hit the city. Needless to say, I never served.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2013 18:00:50 GMT
I received a letter once telling me that I had been randomly selected as a possible juror for the coming year. It arrived by normal post. Since apparently I was not selected for jury duty, I don't know how the next step is handled.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 8, 2013 19:41:39 GMT
When I was called for jury duty a couple of years ago, I first got a letter (by regular post) saying that I was on a list of possible jurors. I don't remember exactly, but a month or two later, I was notified that I was on the list of jurors who had to serve during the month of June and I was to be at the courthouse at 9 am on a specific date.
The first morning, we were all called in to a big room, and those who had medical certificates or other valid excuses were allowed to leave. The rest of us were given an explanation about how things worked, got a tour of the courtroom, told how the process works, etc. Then we got lunch and the first court case was in the afternoon.
In court, our names were put on a list, and the presiding judge had a container of tiles or little wooden blocks with numbers on them. If your number (corresponding to your name on the list) was called, you had to go to the jury box. There were 9 of us, plus 2 extras who were to take over in case a juror got sick. A bit like numbers being called for a lottery! Those who weren't called could go home or to work.
Each case lasted 2 or 3 days, so all 40 or so of us had to turn up for the lottery a couple of times a week. Some jurors who weren't called sat through the trials anyway, just out of interest. I only served once, and another time my name was drawn but the pathologist who was to testify was sick, so the trial was postponed.
Each case was judged by a judge, two magistrates and then us sitting at the front on either side. I had no idea what it would be like, my only previous experience was seeing old Perry Mason TV shows.
The worst was for those whose names were drawn as extras. They sat behind everybody else, sort of out of sight of the court and listened. But they weren't allowed to participate in the deliberations. Fortunately, that never happened to me.
|
|