castledoom.com

[Waray]

Since I moved out of my parental room in an appartment with 2 friends of mine, debate has sprung up once in a while over an interesting issue. I've got more then a couple of friends with the Dutch police, while I'm busy at university to get my law degree in punal law & eager to join a law firm (get my bar would be how it's called in the US if I'm not mistaken).

Our main arguments consist out of the relation between the police and lawyers, which basically comes down to the point of the police finding lawyers annoying & liars who get criminals out of jail, while lawyers find police annoying & liars who get innocent people in jail.

In Dutch law the police has probably every resource to their disposal you can imagine, as long as they get the right clearance from judges, etc. To their opinion, all the paperwork only contributes in slowing them down, while they feel the police should have more rights into gaining evidence on the spot since their work is mainly about intuation.

Which I find very dangerous. To me, the law enforcements first priority is upholding the law, thus operate in the given space of our fundamental rights. Especially since 9/11, a lot of new laws have been passed, while mainly aimed at terrorists it also effects a lot of smaller cases. To give the police more rights then as of yet, in the nobel cause of "national security", is only making a democratic society worse.

Now I'm not sure what's the deal in the US, but I'm pretty sure a lot of new legislation has been passed to broaden the resources of law enforcement, so I'd be interested in your opinion.

P.S. Eagerly awaiting my classes of Comparative Law & Comparative Criminal Law :P
________
Weed Vaporizer

[JuntaJoe]

While sometimes distasteful, the role of lawyers in criminal cases is the essential stopgap against creeping totalitarianism by the state.

The jobs of police and lawyers are each an essential and separate cog in a properly working judicial system. I see the adversarial nature essential as well.

Sort of like democracy. A lousy example of the art, but the other alternatives are worse.


Btw, passing the bar exam is a separate step here in the US.

College Degree - -> Bar Exam - -> Career in Law.

[crispybacon]

The relationship is definitely a balence between the two. It would be my opinion that both sides as a whole mean good, but are corrupted in their opinions by their point of view against the other. Both are equally part altruistic and all too often equally part corrupt.

Interestingly, I have never heard of any example of any one system where powers of cops and lawyers are perfectly balenced. For example, you can track the see-sawing between rights of the accuser and rights of the accused in US law if you care to look. I would say that we've gone towards rights of the accuser since 9/11, but that might be coming back around.
________
MARIJUANA MEDICAL

[Brf]

This is the appeal behind TV shows such as Law and Order. We get to watch both sides of the coin.

[NibbyCat]

Part of the problem is plea bargaining. If the cops do solid work, and find the bad guy, they feel their work is for nothing when a sharp lawyer and the prosecutor get the guy a lighter sentence on a lesser charge.

And even if the police work is solid and by the book, a sharp lawyer can plant the suspicion of doubt in the jury's mind, making the cops feel their integrity is being maligned.

What started as an impersonal system to do the best to keep innocent people from being convicted starts to feel very personal to the police.

We've heard of lawyers who get their clients off on technicalities. THAT IS THEIR JOB. If the police in those situations had done better work, the outcomes might have been different. It's the "shady" lawyers who keep the cops honest.

If the evidence isn't there, the prosecutor shouldn't have pressed charges to begin with.

[Waray]

Well as far as I read your opinions you all believe in the balance of the law. However it still makes me curious how you feel about new laws being passed on. Even though we all can agree that a law system has to evolve, does the current setting of increased popularity to the concept of public safety eventually jeopardize the law system in total?

edit: let me include an example; for instance in Holland it has become increasingly easy to convict someone of consparicy, because of the fear of a terrorist threat. With this the government hopes to convict people that have taken part/had knowledge of terroristic activities are more easily put in to jail.
________
Bmw m47 history

[JuntaJoe]

No matter what laws are passed, if you have an ambiguous Constitution and a segregated judicial branch then every law can be appealed by lawyers in the courts. Furthermore, it only takes one activist judge to start a precedent that will undermine a dangerous law.

[Waray]

From the movie Thank You For Smoking:

Joey Naylor: Dad, why is the American government the best government?

Nick Naylor: Because of our endless appeals system.
________
Drug test kit