4 ms·

> Also, the "warrant requirement" is an American construct. It isn't a thing in places like Canada, which most would consider a very liberal democracy. Canadian

> Also, the "warrant requirement" is an American construct. It isn't a thing in places like Canada, which most would consider a very liberal democracy. Canadian cops can use evidence even if seized illegally. Nor do they have to stop questioning you if you demand a lawyer. Nor do you get a jury trial. Don't assume that all western democracies use the American legal system. While Canada's justice system is noticeably different than the US's, it isn't generally worse at protecting the rights of the public. Yes, there are search warrants, and in fact Canada is more protective of an individual's home than the US is. Yes, you have the right to a jury trial for serious crimes. Yes, you have the right to remain silent (though it is somewhat different). Both the US and Canada can often use evidence seized illegally - the judges in both places have the ability, but not the obligation, to throw out such evidence.

sandworm101 8y ago
But try taking to an american about the concepts of summary, indictable and hybrid offensives. The idea that crown prosecutors can decide how to try a case is very alien to their clear-cut system of felonies and misdemeanors. >> Both the US and Canada can often use evidence seized illegally - the judges in both places have the ability, but not the obligation, to throw out such evidence. Look that one up. The US is very big on the exclusionary rule. If evidence was seized improperly, unconstitutionally, it is out. The most famous US criminal cases (think Miranda) involve excluding evidence for such reasons, even if that means an admitted criminal is to be set free. The concept so permeates US legal culture that courts take is as a necessary implication whenever discussing evidence.
- jellicle 8y ago
  US cop-TV shows often treat it as a given, but US courts allow in bad evidence more often than not. US supreme court decisions are generally against the exclusionary rule, and it's likely to mostly disappear in the US in the near future, except for very rich defendants. Here's the most recent one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Michigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Michigan where everyone involved says the evidence was seized improperly, unconstitutionally, but the evidence is very much in and the defendants are in prison today.

sandworm101 8y ago

But try taking to an american about the concepts of summary, indictable and hybrid offensives. The idea that crown prosecutors can decide how to try a case is very alien to their clear-cut system of felonies and misdemeanors. >> Both the US and Canada can often use evidence seized illegally - the judges in both places have the ability, but not the obligation, to throw out such evidence. Look that one up. The US is very big on the exclusionary rule. If evidence was seized improperly, unconstitutionally, it is out. The most famous US criminal cases (think Miranda) involve excluding evidence for such reasons, even if that means an admitted criminal is to be set free. The concept so permeates US legal culture that courts take is as a necessary implication whenever discussing evidence.

jellicle 8y ago
US cop-TV shows often treat it as a given, but US courts allow in bad evidence more often than not. US supreme court decisions are generally against the exclusionary rule, and it's likely to mostly disappear in the US in the near future, except for very rich defendants. Here's the most recent one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Michigan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._Michigan where everyone involved says the evidence was seized improperly, unconstitutionally, but the evidence is very much in and the defendants are in prison today.