5 ms·

I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're from the U.S. I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries

I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're from the U.S. I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries (for instance, in the EU).

microcolonel 9y ago
In countries with rights, all of the same applies.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  The way in which those rights are legally secured (in addition to the rights even conceived of) differs from one country to another, even in countries we'd generally consider as those which respect human rights and the rule of law.
whamlastxmas 9y ago
I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you. Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.
- the-dude 9y ago
  Citation needed.
  - blibble 9y ago
    in the UK there are specific circumstances where adverse inferences may be made from silence, the police caution is: > You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. the wikipedia article goes into details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - cortic 9y ago
    “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.
    - jopsen 9y ago
      If you listen to the video, the professor says that nothing you say to the US police can be used to defend you later. From your quote we see that this is not the case in the UK. Something you say can later be used in your defense, so clearly if you choose to say nothing -- you have less that could be used in your defense. > I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights. Compared to the US?
      - cortic 9y ago
        No, we have hearsay laws similar to the US. We can't compel an officer to testify on our behalf about something we said to them in questioning. its just in the UK, if you talk to the police, and forget something that is important you don't get to use it later, or its not as useful later. This has lead to a lot of unsound convictions of people who were intoxicated at the time of arrest; They tell some abridged version of their story to police, leaving half the important details out, leaving them with half a case to take to court. In Scotland they have started Requiring solicitors to be present at interviews of suspects (of some crimes) because of this, making statements inadmissible unless a solicitor was present.
- floofyfloofer 9y ago
  False, since 2013, when the Supreme Court held that remaining silent wasn't sufficient to invoke your right to remain silent. "suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk:" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
  - rocqua 9y ago
    The particulars of that case matter though. In this case, the suspect had spoken to the police, and during this didn't respond to a certain question / responded to the question with silence. If I recall correctly, the court reasoned that by first speaking, he gave up his right to remain silent. Moreover, he responded by silence rather that actively asserting his right to remain silent. Not to say I agree with the ruling, especially because he was never mirandized. However, it is not clear cut that simply remaining silent isn't enough to assert your right against self-incrimination.
    - dvtv75 9y ago
      Many years ago, in New Zealand, the flatmate of a friend of mine told me much the same: if you're questioned by the police, you can't just stop talking and claim your right to silence. You gave that up by answering questions.
emodendroket 9y ago
Well, for instance, not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle.
- jopsen 9y ago
  [citation needed] Article 8 of the ECHR seems to require a court orders of some kind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv... Not all European countries have the same exact rules as the US, some have stronger privacy in some areas and some have weaker in some areas. But the US isn't exactly a poster child for privacy. Granted US rights on unlawful searches are for the most part decent.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom > In England and Wales, a local magistrate issues search warrants, which require that a constable provide evidence that supports the warrant application. In the majority of cases where police already hold someone in custody, police can search premises without a search warrant under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which requires only the authority of an inspector. > Under Section 18(5)a of PACE, a constable can conduct a search immediately without an inspector's authorisation. This subsection allows a constable to search the home of a suspect(s) under arrest in their presence before they take the suspect to a police station (or other custody location). Under Section 32 of PACE, a constable who arrests a person who is on their own property or has just left their premises, may immediately search both the suspect and the immediate area. At no point did I say that the US is a "poster child for privacy," but the laws work differently.
    - jopsen 9y ago
      > but the laws work differently The general concept is the same. Your original comments said: > "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle". EU membership nations have laws that require search warrants in some form. Most exceptions to this are reasonable, narrow and well defined. Similar to exceptions in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States#Exceptions_to_the_search_warrant_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_Un... Your original comment: > "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle". Suggests that this is not the case in Europe.
kaybe 9y ago
All that happened to me after we called the police when we witnessed somebody breaking an ATM machine and driving off with a car was (apart from ID and telling them what we saw) a call a few weeks later from a police officer. He complained that the firewall at the office would not let him download the video I had uploaded to some 3rd party service and if I could just burn him a CD and bring it. (Seriously.) I talked him into trying some other things, and did not get contacted since. That was weird. edit: In Germany.
nabla9 9y ago
The main principles apply to all EU countries, the details differ. Each member state implemetns these thigns differently but they must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights See 24/67 Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a fair trial http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.p... >119. Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself (Funke v. France, § 44; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 45; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 60). Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities these immunities contribute to avoiding miscarriages of justice and to securing the aims of Article 6 (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45). >120. The right not to incriminate oneself applies to criminal proceedings in respect of all types of criminal offences, from the most simple to the most complex (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 74). >121. The right to remain silent applies from the point at which the suspect is questioned by the police (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).
- grooling 9y ago
  Thank you very much I've always wondered. Anywhere else I can read about my rights as an EU citizen? Its a lot harder to get information about it compared to the US I feel
jopsen 9y ago
I'm no lawyer, but I guess would be that: A) Prosecutors and judges are generally NOT elected or politically engaged. Nor are they politically appointed, with exception of some higher court judges. B) Police in many countries are required to conduct an independent study. The must present all evidence; and so contrary to the US what you say can be used to your advantage (that still doesn't always make talking advantageous). C) In civil law systems judges are often far more empowered to seek the truth. Where as in the US (common law), judges mainly facilitate an argument between defense and prosecutor in-front of a jury. D) prosecutors in other countries are often tasked with finding the truth, they are not elected, and the whole system is less adversarial than the US. E) Politics is less dysfunctional, and most European countries have civil law, which makes it easier to comply with the law. There isn't 10k statutes on the books. F) Police is better behaved; well trained; typically governed at country level (not by local politics). G) Many countries have a functional public defense system. All of this differs from country to country. Some countries might not have functional public defense (G), but on average it's my understanding that western European countries do better in these ways. That doesn't necessarily make talking to the police a good idea. But there are a lot of fewer traps people can fall into. And so I personally would feel more comfortable helping a European police officer. After all the downside of not talking to the police is that crimes won't be solved.

I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're from the U.S. I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries (for instance, in the EU).

microcolonel 9y ago

In countries with rights, all of the same applies.

emodendroket 9y ago
The way in which those rights are legally secured (in addition to the rights even conceived of) differs from one country to another, even in countries we'd generally consider as those which respect human rights and the rule of law.

whamlastxmas 9y ago

I think a lot of countries have the ability to hold your silence against you. Thankfully this isn't the case in the US.

the-dude 9y ago
Citation needed.
- blibble 9y ago
  in the UK there are specific circumstances where adverse inferences may be made from silence, the police caution is: > You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. the wikipedia article goes into details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cortic 9y ago
  “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    If you listen to the video, the professor says that nothing you say to the US police can be used to defend you later. From your quote we see that this is not the case in the UK. Something you say can later be used in your defense, so clearly if you choose to say nothing -- you have less that could be used in your defense. > I imagine there is a sizable amount of injustice in the UK due to not having a 4th amendment like rights. Compared to the US?
    - cortic 9y ago
      No, we have hearsay laws similar to the US. We can't compel an officer to testify on our behalf about something we said to them in questioning. its just in the UK, if you talk to the police, and forget something that is important you don't get to use it later, or its not as useful later. This has lead to a lot of unsound convictions of people who were intoxicated at the time of arrest; They tell some abridged version of their story to police, leaving half the important details out, leaving them with half a case to take to court. In Scotland they have started Requiring solicitors to be present at interviews of suspects (of some crimes) because of this, making statements inadmissible unless a solicitor was present.
floofyfloofer 9y ago
False, since 2013, when the Supreme Court held that remaining silent wasn't sufficient to invoke your right to remain silent. "suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk:" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
- rocqua 9y ago
  The particulars of that case matter though. In this case, the suspect had spoken to the police, and during this didn't respond to a certain question / responded to the question with silence. If I recall correctly, the court reasoned that by first speaking, he gave up his right to remain silent. Moreover, he responded by silence rather that actively asserting his right to remain silent. Not to say I agree with the ruling, especially because he was never mirandized. However, it is not clear cut that simply remaining silent isn't enough to assert your right against self-incrimination.
  - dvtv75 9y ago
    Many years ago, in New Zealand, the flatmate of a friend of mine told me much the same: if you're questioned by the police, you can't just stop talking and claim your right to silence. You gave that up by answering questions.

emodendroket 9y ago

Well, for instance, not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle.

jopsen 9y ago
[citation needed] Article 8 of the ECHR seems to require a court orders of some kind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv... Not all European countries have the same exact rules as the US, some have stronger privacy in some areas and some have weaker in some areas. But the US isn't exactly a poster child for privacy. Granted US rights on unlawful searches are for the most part decent.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_Kingdom > In England and Wales, a local magistrate issues search warrants, which require that a constable provide evidence that supports the warrant application. In the majority of cases where police already hold someone in custody, police can search premises without a search warrant under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which requires only the authority of an inspector. > Under Section 18(5)a of PACE, a constable can conduct a search immediately without an inspector's authorisation. This subsection allows a constable to search the home of a suspect(s) under arrest in their presence before they take the suspect to a police station (or other custody location). Under Section 32 of PACE, a constable who arrests a person who is on their own property or has just left their premises, may immediately search both the suspect and the immediate area. At no point did I say that the US is a "poster child for privacy," but the laws work differently.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    > but the laws work differently The general concept is the same. Your original comments said: > "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle". EU membership nations have laws that require search warrants in some form. Most exceptions to this are reasonable, narrow and well defined. Similar to exceptions in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States#Exceptions_to_the_search_warrant_requirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_Un... Your original comment: > "not everyone has rules where the police need a warrant to search your home or vehicle". Suggests that this is not the case in Europe.

kaybe 9y ago

All that happened to me after we called the police when we witnessed somebody breaking an ATM machine and driving off with a car was (apart from ID and telling them what we saw) a call a few weeks later from a police officer. He complained that the firewall at the office would not let him download the video I had uploaded to some 3rd party service and if I could just burn him a CD and bring it. (Seriously.) I talked him into trying some other things, and did not get contacted since. That was weird. edit: In Germany.

nabla9 9y ago

The main principles apply to all EU countries, the details differ. Each member state implemetns these thigns differently but they must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights See 24/67 Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a fair trial http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.p... >119. Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself (Funke v. France, § 44; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 45; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 60). Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion by the authorities these immunities contribute to avoiding miscarriages of justice and to securing the aims of Article 6 (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45). >120. The right not to incriminate oneself applies to criminal proceedings in respect of all types of criminal offences, from the most simple to the most complex (Saunders v. the United Kingdom, § 74). >121. The right to remain silent applies from the point at which the suspect is questioned by the police (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).

grooling 9y ago
Thank you very much I've always wondered. Anywhere else I can read about my rights as an EU citizen? Its a lot harder to get information about it compared to the US I feel

jopsen 9y ago

I'm no lawyer, but I guess would be that: A) Prosecutors and judges are generally NOT elected or politically engaged. Nor are they politically appointed, with exception of some higher court judges. B) Police in many countries are required to conduct an independent study. The must present all evidence; and so contrary to the US what you say can be used to your advantage (that still doesn't always make talking advantageous). C) In civil law systems judges are often far more empowered to seek the truth. Where as in the US (common law), judges mainly facilitate an argument between defense and prosecutor in-front of a jury. D) prosecutors in other countries are often tasked with finding the truth, they are not elected, and the whole system is less adversarial than the US. E) Politics is less dysfunctional, and most European countries have civil law, which makes it easier to comply with the law. There isn't 10k statutes on the books. F) Police is better behaved; well trained; typically governed at country level (not by local politics). G) Many countries have a functional public defense system. All of this differs from country to country. Some countries might not have functional public defense (G), but on average it's my understanding that western European countries do better in these ways. That doesn't necessarily make talking to the police a good idea. But there are a lot of fewer traps people can fall into. And so I personally would feel more comfortable helping a European police officer. After all the downside of not talking to the police is that crimes won't be solved.