Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. Edited September 27, 2006 by Kevin Carr's Gloves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. So how are you going to determine the criminal accused from the innocent accused and only allow the innocent ones their rights? Edited September 27, 2006 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. So how are you going to determine the criminal accused from the innocent accused and only allow the innocent ones their rights? Why does an innocent man need the right to silence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. So how are you going to determine the criminal accused from the innocent accused and only allow the innocent ones their rights? Why does an innocent man need the right to silence? To protect a loved one? To avoid embarrassment? To Keep an affair hidden? To keep their job? Could be loads of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. so, anyone arrested is a criminal until proven innocent and they shouldn't have any fancy dan lawyer trying to keep everything above board while the honest (and institutionally racist btw) force get their confession? What a loony lefty I am thinking this is what we wanted to move away from. Do you want to go mis quote what I said some more. You could make up passages and put them in bold. I said Lawyer meetings shouldn't be private. The only reason this is allowed is so other illegal activity isn't found out and the lawyer gets more for winning a case. I also didn't mention innocent until proven guilty or vice versa either I just don't think you should be able to keep quiet about breaking the law if you are caught which these people have been BTW. So don't worry you're not a loony lefty. Just an idiot. I never mis quoted you at all, I didn't change so much as a comma. I was simply lampooning your suggestion that someone who's accused must be a criminal. Again that construes a misquote. Where do I say that all accused are criminals. Or suggest that? What I said was, anyone who is accused and is a criminal shouldn't be able to hide that fact. So how are you going to determine the criminal accused from the innocent accused and only allow the innocent ones their rights? Why does an innocent man need the right to silence? To protect a loved one? To avoid embarrassment? To Keep an affair hidden? To keep their job? Could be loads of reasons. Actually some of those are good arguments. How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions and receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions and receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? Is that one question or two? How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions? Many people have been mistakenly labelled as criminals so I'm happy for the accused to continue protesting their innocene after being sentenced. How do you feel about criminals receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I'm all for violent and corporate crimes having stricter sentences. How do you feel about criminals who don't accept responsibility for their actions receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I don't think the perpetrators attitude should come into it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9896 Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions and receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? Is that one question or two? How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions? Many people have been mistakenly labelled as criminals so I'm happy for the accused to continue protesting their innocene after being sentenced. How do you feel about criminals receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I'm all for violent and corporate crimes having stricter sentences. How do you feel about criminals who don't accept responsibility for their actions receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I don't think the perpetrators attitude should come into it at all. Again not actually looking at what I said. I said criminal. Actual guilty people not fessing up and easing the anguish of parents and loved ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Have you got any statistics on death rate due to speeding going up and up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions and receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? Is that one question or two? How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions? Many people have been mistakenly labelled as criminals so I'm happy for the accused to continue protesting their innocene after being sentenced. How do you feel about criminals receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I'm all for violent and corporate crimes having stricter sentences. How do you feel about criminals who don't accept responsibility for their actions receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I don't think the perpetrators attitude should come into it at all. Again not actually looking at what I said. I said criminal. Actual guilty people not fessing up and easing the anguish of parents and loved ones. Again though, How do I know they're guilty? I'll go with a courts decision but if a defendent wants to continue to claim innocence that's their perogative. If you mean cases where someone admits guilt but refuses to co-operate in locating a corpse then gets released, I don't know of any case where that's happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions and receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? Is that one question or two? How do you feel about criminals not accepting responsibility for their actions? Many people have been mistakenly labelled as criminals so I'm happy for the accused to continue protesting their innocene after being sentenced. How do you feel about criminals receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I'm all for violent and corporate crimes having stricter sentences. How do you feel about criminals who don't accept responsibility for their actions receiving light sentences for heinous crimes? I don't think the perpetrators attitude should come into it at all. Again not actually looking at what I said. I said criminal. Actual guilty people not fessing up and easing the anguish of parents and loved ones. Again though, How do I know they're guilty? I'll go with a courts decision but if a defendent wants to continue to claim innocence that's their perogative. If you mean cases where someone admits guilt but refuses to co-operate in locating a corpse then gets released, I don't know of any case where that's happened. I didn't mention about them getting released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 Again though, How do I know they're guilty? I'll go with a courts decision but if a defendent wants to continue to claim innocence that's their perogative. If you mean cases where someone admits guilt but refuses to co-operate in locating a corpse then gets released, I don't know of any case where that's happened. I didn't mention about them getting released. Well if they aren't released I'd have thought everyone would be happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9896 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 The burden of proof has to lie with the prosecution. You can't say to someone admit it or we'll lock you up for not admitting it, irrespective of if you have anything to admit in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? That wasn't your point, though, was it? "The right to silence is relatively new actually." Now when that's proved wrong you've moved it to, well old doesn't mean good. You've also ignored two people who raised issues with what you were saying yesterday. Stop talking shite! Edited September 28, 2006 by ObaGol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9896 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? Well, it was you who raised the point that it is a shit modern law and a form of political correctness going mad, probably just like the abolishment of slavery... So what would you like to introduce to make those suspects speak? Torture? What is about those who remain silent because they haven't done anything, would you like to torture them as well? I'll probably find an old SS cloak for you somewhere down here... Edited September 28, 2006 by Isegrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? Well, it was you who raised the point that it is a shit modern law and a form of political correctness going mad, probably just like the abolishment of slavery... So what would you like to introduce to make those suspects speak? Torture? What is about those who remain silent because they haven't done anything, would you like to torture them as well? I'll probably find an old SS cloak for you somewhere down here... I never said it was political correctness going mad. And no one has proved it is an old law with facts yet either. What i am saying is the right to silence isn't something I completely agree with. And nothing anyone has said has yet to convince me that i am wrong in this. But then again this is an internet forum and people prefer to take everything people say out of context to use in their own arguments. And if I am wrong about anything then fair enough. I am not enough of a wanker to go in a sulk because something I have said is wrong and been proved to be so. that is the difference between reasonable people and thought nazi's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3964 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? That wasn't your point, though, was it? "The right to silence is relatively new actually." Now when that's proved wrong you've moved it to, well old doesn't mean good. You've also ignored two people who raised issues with what you were saying yesterday. Stop talking shite! Oh and by the way the right to avoid self incrimination was firstcodified in England and Wales in 1912. Basium Meus Solum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 9896 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) These Human rights people should stop protecting the rights of criminals and maybe take up the rights of normal law abiding citizens to live a life without the fear of crime. How do you tell them apart without a precise and explicit code of conduct applied accross the board? The right to remain silent must be about as old and set in stone as the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Would you prefer to erode the human rights of everyone to to ensure someone...anyone was convicted of every crime? The right to silence is relatively new actually. It was brought in to stop people accused of one thing from being asked to tell the police everything they had done wrong. It isn't about civil rights. If you have been asked about something you have done you should have to tell the police / authorities. Same as I don't believe in a criminals right to private conference with his lawyer either. Oh, and I thougt the principle "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" was quite old, but you are right it wasn't known among the Neanderthals... Just cos it's in Latin doesn't make it old. You can translate anything into latin. Yep, especially those nice do-gooders and civil right activists in the middle ages could. That's why it is found in loads of medieval legal text books. The right to own slaves was quite old too but we thought that was wrong. Just because anything is old doesn't mean it is good and proper. So let me get this right. It is ok for a person to stay silent about a murder or any criminal act they have witnessed or taken part in because to say something may embarass (sp) them. Or an innocent man can knowingly withhold evidence which would clear him quickly and save the tax payer money for the same reason? That wasn't your point, though, was it? "The right to silence is relatively new actually." Now when that's proved wrong you've moved it to, well old doesn't mean good. You've also ignored two people who raised issues with what you were saying yesterday. Stop talking shite! Oh and by the way the right to avoid self incrimination was firstcodified in England and Wales in 1912. Basium Meus Solum It was already part of ius commune (expressis verbis in the glossa ordinaria of the liber extra) and adopted in the common law legal procedure long before. It was also - just for example - part of the Indictable Offences Act 1848 (Sir Jervis's Act). As you are so much interested, I recommend you to read Helmholz, The privilege against self-incrimination instead of some random wikipedia article. Edited September 28, 2006 by Isegrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 prus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Have you got any statistics on death rate due to speeding going up and up? Coincidentally, its just been on the news. Speed only a factor in 15% of accidents. I'm not advocating putting limits up universally, in fact I think some should come down. But if motorway limits were more relavent to the 21st century I don't think people would mind if they were rigourously enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46023 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 HF and KCG would do well to invoke their right to remain silent before they bore me to sleep with this thread tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now