[lesmore49]

Both Canada and the USA have citizen rights guaranteed by each countries' respective Constitution.

I'm quite happy to live in a country that has personal rights enshrined in our constitution.

But on occasion when I hear about a chronic criminal beating a serious charge, because he/she is able to find protection behind constitutional rights, I do think to myself, this was not the intent of constitutional rights.

We have all heard the legal argument that if the most heinous criminal must be protected by constitutional rights, for if he/she isn't...then it reflects poorly and may eventually affect the freedoms and protections of all citizens.

.

[Phil1]

'But on occasion when I hear about a chronic criminal beating a serious charge, because he/she is able to find protection behind constitutional rights, I do think to myself, this was not the intent of constitutional rights.'

Then you will be pleased to hear our brain bead gov't has just read the recent BVD bomber/non-uniformed trained combatant his Miranda rights. Just to remind you, we are moving Gitmo to NY so the non-uniformed trained combatants will have civilian trials. With a little luck we will have year long TV trials for each just like the OJ joke.

Libs, terrorists and lawyers win, John Q Public looses again.

Vote early and often.

[SteveM]

I like the fact that criminals in Canada cannot hide behind as many technicalities that are well known in the states such as "Miranda rights", or needing a warrant to search someone's car for example. If an officer has reasonable suspicion, he/she has the right to search.....and that is the way it should be.

There are issues which are more global. It appears that all of the "mental institutions" were shutdown in many countries. I always wondered if this was due to a shift in balance between individual and collective rights. The government could finally get in trouble for housing someone deemed handicapped. The large institutions were shut with promise of more community care. Funding for community care did not happen, people fell through the cracks and ended up on the street. With drugs and everything else associated with the street, we now end up housing people anyways, but in jail where they are learning new lessons and the problem gets worse.

I find it puzzling that people blame judges. Are people that naive and completely in the dark? We can't build prisons fast enough or afford them, so part of criminal justice these days is to track availability for incarceration. The goal is to house those deemed most risky, release those that we feel we can, and not house those that are low risk. It has nothing to do with the judges....they must follow the system.

Constitutional rights come at a cost and it's a tricky balance....

[matiki]

....
Constitutional rights come at a cost and it's a tricky balance....

This.

If the guilty do not have the constitutional right, than neither do the innocent.

[Ratmagiclady]

Both Canada and the USA have citizen rights guaranteed by each countries' respective Constitution.

I'm quite happy to live in a country that has personal rights enshrined in our constitution.

But on occasion when I hear about a chronic criminal beating a serious charge, because he/she is able to find protection behind constitutional rights, I do think to myself, this was not the intent of constitutional rights.

We have all heard the legal argument that if the most heinous criminal must be protected by constitutional rights, for if he/she isn't...then it reflects poorly and may eventually affect the freedoms and protections of all citizens.

.

Those 'what if' scenarioes are meant to scare people *out* of important rights for all, is what it is.

Observing Constitutional protections is not *actually* about the criminal. It's about the *police.*

If a criminal gets off on a technicality, someone blew the bust. You don't answer this by giving the government authority to violate rights at will.

In America we call ourselves 'the land of the free, and the home of the brave.' Sometimes, you have to be a little braver than you'd like, to stay free, yourself.

Some like to try to twist things around to say that 'Civil Rights are just Big Government making us Less Safe From That Guy On The News, ...Don't, Of Course, Tell Me Not to Drive or Shoot Or Sell Guns Recklessly, Though... Just shoot the bad guys, they're bad, right? Cheaper! Even if it's not!'

It's out of perspective.

Civil rights are a much greater protection on all counts.

People without civil rights, a sense of security and trust... Might well have no stake in the lives of others.

People who want to see heads roll, may see the wrong ones roll, and then two crimes were done, while the real perp goes free... Until someone else is accused.

(Yes, here we go again,)

Some here claim that LBGT civil rights and equality, just like the last groups they claimed 'God hates,' will lead to some insane fears coming to pass.. To justify ....Churches spending hundreds and hundreds of millions to oppress others while claiming to be the 'only source of charity,' (then using that to say, Now that we've taken over a lot of your threadbare social services, hurt the gays or 'we can't' help the poor...)

Of course, five to ten percent of the nation just has to suffer and also throw what money they have around to defend those rights someone wants to take away, instead of doing other things... The nation suffers a *decade* of utter misrule, pushed over the top by the idea civil rights are 'bad,' or negotiable.....

Then say 'Someone else different hates our freedom! Let's pay the corporations a trillion or to to have us fight and die in the wrong damn war.. But, No gays. Well, you can be gay, just don't stand up to the beatings or harassment, cause then 'You told,' and go from 'hero' to 'felon' ...Spending almost two billion to kick out two LBGT people a day, often with multiple tours and stop-losses, honorable service records called 'General,' (ie dishonorable' ) for their pains, some of them in vitally-needed-and-expensive-to train roles... kicking *so* many out of the military when they actually had to *lower* security standards to make up for low recruitment?

Fire a mission-critical gay Arabic translator, retain the guy who shot up Ft. Hood. Great.

People call into question civil rights, you could end up with something like Uganda and Rwanda where the Evangelicals sold them on the idea of having a right old witch-hunt, where being called 'gay' twice means 'aggravated homosexuality'... And a death penalty. All citizens required to report any gays they know within 24 hours or go to jail. For 'aiding and abetting,' Any lawyer defending anyone against a charge of being gay... also, five years in an Ugandan jail for 'aiding and abetting.'

(And, of course, speaking negatively about that law, itself? Also five-six years in an Ugandan prison for 'aiding and abetting homosexuality.' Charming. )

You know what that means? Basically, anyone can finger *anyone* for jail or execution... (and forfeiture of property, right?) (No one said the 'accusations' even had to be true, you know) And no one can say boo about it.

Forget about the *also-popularized* actual *witch hunts* the missionaries stirred up there, with all the nonsense of their own 'Satanic Panic' from here in America in the 80's and 90s, (Complete, of course, with a self-appointed 'witch-finder-general who claims to have 'sacrificed' 70 people himself and somehow has never turned himself in or been arrested, but is paid very well...) ....they've *already* set up a mechanism where any given schlub can put someone before the state for execution.




Civil rights? Oh, yeah. They're important. This kind of stuff was last-week's news to Europe when our freedoms were codified.

'Wedge issue' here, but ...Apart from that being the wedge means someone's hammering at you pretty hard all the time...

Where some want this general 'anti-civil rights' sentiment to go, is far worse than letting a few guilty people go free.

The answer is better police-work, not revoking or rolling back rights and liberties.

The latter, in practice, never ends.

So, who benefits the *most?* Most folks don't even know the half of it.

Sometimes the price of freedom, in our nations of *laws,* ...Is accepting a little danger.

To mitigate this danger, we have police and justice systems. Who need to follow procedure and hold rights as sacred. The alternative is no option. Also no safety.

[lesmore49]

This.

If the guilty do not have the constitutional right, than neither do the innocent.

Interesting comment, that is important to assess carefully.

That has become a mantra among the legal community, but I sometimes wonder how true that view is in reality.

Lawyers bring it up and sometimes base an important part of their argument using this view.

It mostly seems to come up, when they are generally defending the most heinous of criminals, those individuals that have a long list of extremely serious, previous convictions.

The view that the most evil among us, need to have constitutional rights, protected, in order to ensure that the average citizen gets protected rights...preys on the average citizen who after hearing this ...starts to think...what if I'm in a similar situation.

The average citizen is never going to be in a similar situation. It's unlikely he / she , for example will murder another citizen.

I think this is more a case of 'working' the fear to the average citizen, that Joe Average might someday be accused of murder and then using this fear as a persuasive tool for juries, in order to benefit their client, come judgment day...in the court anyways.

[Ratmagiclady]

The view that the most evil among us, need to have constitutional rights, protected, in order to ensure that the average citizen gets protected rights...preys on the average citizen who after hearing this ...starts to think...what if I'm in a similar situation.

The average citizen is never going to be in a similar situation. It's unlikely he / she , for example will murder another citizen.

It's not about self-interest or 'judging good and evil,' Les.


It's about the *law.*

I think this is more a case of 'working' the fear to the average citizen, that Joe Average might someday be accused of murder and then using this fear as a persuasive tool for juries, in order to benefit their client, come judgment day...in the court anyways.

This is where it doesn't do to conflate the law with your idea of 'Judgment Day.' If I were Christian, I'd find that pretty damn arrogant.

The *law* is part of our social contract.

May it please *all* Gods who are friends of Man, but, it's not religion.

It's ...a legal system. It really needs to stay that way. as I said, the alternative is no option.

It does not make a perfect world, just a more-civilized one. Much. More. Civilized. Really.

The only people who truly have rights are the disgustingly rich. They have as many rights as they are prepared to pay for.

[SteveM]

This.

If the guilty do not have the constitutional right, than neither do the innocent.

I agree that everyone needs to be working from the same set of rules/rights. It is not always the same however......Police and some other officials tend to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us (no not always successfully) and criminals lose rights such as freedom when they are found guilty. Fundamentally, we want constitutional rights for everyone so we have checks and balances in place to ensure, for example, the correct people are found guilty, not the first ones accused.

Laws - Most remain the same for everyone regardless of guilt or position in society - but not all. It is legal to use a different set of traffic laws for firefighters to respond to a fire. It is legal for a Police officer to wander around with a firearm. At least in Canada, these alternate laws are well defined and must be followed.

Rights - some remain the same, such as the right of a fair trial. Other are revoked, such as the right to drive a car, the right to be free, the right to be around children, etc.

[Ratmagiclady]

Rights - some remain the same, such as the right of a fair trial. Other are revoked, such as the right to drive a car, the right to be free, the right to be around children, etc.

In America, at least, these are not among 'Rights.' Save where it comes to 'equal protection under the law, and 'innocent until proven guilty of a crime in a court of law.'

The right to a fair trial is absolute: the 'right to drive' means everyone has a right to be licensed to drive if they can show they can drive. You can't say 'Women can't drive,' and deny all licenses, but you can say to someone who can't pass a driving test, 'You are deemed unfit to drive.' (On public roads.) You can say that 'If you break the law, you go to jail, ...you can say to someone convicted of child molestation, 'You can be ordered to not go near kids, and arrested for violating that ruling,' ...but you can't say, for instance, "My preacher said you queers are child molesters, so you can't keep your kids, give them to the abusive straight relative..." (Well, you * can* say it, and it's gotten away with, but it's actually Unconstitutional: human beings are involved. But this is why it's supposed to be the *law,* not some jealousl-God in loco parentis. Ask the Native Americans.)

[Leaf Fan]

Constitutional Rights-who benefits the most ?

Criminals.

[Ratmagiclady]

Criminals.

Is that your analysis?

You take too much for granted.

Say I don't want to pay for a lens you sold me, and I received.

I say, oh, I dunno, would you prefer I accuse you of ... blackmail, rape, heresy, sedition...?

How bout 'witchcraft?' Being gay? Popular one, these days...

And so many of these anti-civil rights people say I lack 'enterprise.'

Still not seeing the benefit of civil rights?

[Blue]

If an officer has reasonable suspicion, he/she has the right to search.....and that is the way it should be.

The devil is in the details with this! That is exactly why the Bill of Rights has the 4th and 5th Amendments in it.

Contrary to some comments I here on the radio from some groups, the the U.S. Constitution hasn't been changed that often. In fact, the 1st 10 Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were put in so that the Constitution would be ratified in no small part by speechifying by James Madison and John Hancock. Excluding the Bill of Rights (1-10), there have been 17 Amendments in the past 219 years.

These Rights do NOT come from the Government. The Government gets it's authority from the Constitution just like the People. There are those that do not like the Constitution because it tells the Government what it can't do TO us.

Criminals.

Not really. If it wasn't for the Bill of Rights, we would be having door to door searches a lot like sobriety check points.

I remember the days when government actually upheld the Constitution.

[lesmore49]

In my province driving is not considered a right, but it is considered a privilege.

I don't see driving as an inalienable right...rights are things like freedom of speech.