Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,791
edits
Artistic License Law: Difference between revisions
m
removed Category:Artistic License Indexes; added Category:Artistic License using HotCat
mNo edit summary |
m (removed Category:Artistic License Indexes; added Category:Artistic License using HotCat) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 33:
*** Similarly, a judge is called "My lord" in Canada, but many people without a law degree call them "Your honour" instead.
** Somewhere, a Finnish teacher of social studies is crying, since the kids remember that Finnish courts have them guys, whaddya call them... A jury! Except that it's not a jury, and it has another name.
** Due to our television viewing being largely American in origin, many Canadians believe that invoking the right to remain silent means the interrogation is over. Under Canadian constitutional law, the suspect does have the right to refuse to answer questions... but the police have the right to keep asking them. The exception to this is if the suspect asks for a lawyer; the police have to give them the opportunity to consult with one before any further questioning, but once they do, the lawyer doesn't have to be present for any subsequent questioning. This also means the common "Only contact me through my lawyer" demand suspects give in fiction doesn't apply.
*** That's the same as in America - the right to remain silent is
**** Actually the right to remain silent is the right to end the interview, there was a supreme court case a year or two ago{{when}} where someone after much questioning where he had been silent admitted to something, the defense tried to get it thrown out claiming that he had been exercising his right to remain silent, but the court ruled that simply being quiet isn't enough as you may want to hear what the police have to say, to actually exercise your right you have to explicitly tell them that the interview is over at which point they are
** Judges in the UK do not have gavels. Judges in British TV shows frequently do.
** Many a German gnashes his teeth every time "Objection!" is used in works produced in Germany. German trials do not work that way; the judge is the one asking the questions, and the attorneys have the right to ask additional questions or add in statements. Most of the proceedings are a discussion of facts, which makes sense, since it's the judge or a panel of judges making the decision in the end. But of course, a thrown-out "Objection!" is much more flashy...
Line 48:
* [[Hero Insurance]]: There ''is'' the Good Samaritan Rule in the US which immunizes people who try to help others from suits for accidentally injuring them (for instance by performing CPR) but it doesn't extend nearly so far as portrayed in TV or movies.
* [[High Altitude Interrogation]]: The one interrogation method that is ''worse'' than [[Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique]]. Rather than torture someone, this takes awful interrogation [[Incredibly Lame Pun|to new heights]] by threatening to ''kill'' the potential informer. Unlike in fiction, threatening to kill the [[Mooks|mook]] who has inside knowledge of the [[Big Bad]]'s activities means that you're willing to follow through with that should he be non-compliant, but unless you have other people in custody that would likely know the same information who you can interrogate, too, you would unsurprisingly be ending any chance of attaining that knowledge as well as any chance of uncovering new leads to follow if he's killed. Dead men can't tell tales, after all. Even if it's meant as an empty threat, the informer might think that his interrogator would kill him, anyway, which would also make him much less willing to cooperate.
** Perp will tell the Copper whatever the Copper wants to hear. Some states apply the Common Law and confession from this is
*** The awesome German word for it is "Beweisverwertungsverbot" (disallowment of evidence in court)
* [[Hollywood Law]]
Line 114:
*** It should be duly noted that Australian law generally assumes that a person is aware of the existence of terms and conditions written on a ticket, and he will be legally bound by those terms, unless he can prove to the court that such a term is unusually onerous (very, very unfair and not usually expected on a ticket) or that he was not able to have a reasonable opportunity to learn of the terms and conditions before buying the ticket (which is ''difficult'' to prove, as it is generally assumed that it is the duty of the buyer of the ticket to check the terms and conditions of the ticket before buying (by looking them up on the Internet or asking for them from the supplier of the ticket)).
*** Also, be aware that when you entered a contract, it is generally assumed that you are aware of the existence of terms and conditions and that if it isn't made available to you - you must ask for it. If the other party can prove that you had a reasonable opportunity to learn of exactly what the terms are before entering the contract and you chose to enter the contract without trying to find out the terms and conditions first, you're effectively screwed.
** From January 1
** In Germany, there's a special law for general terms and conditions of contracts that are predefined by the seller or service provider and not negotiable. The most important part of the law is that anything that would be "unexpected" to find in such a contract is automatically null and void and replaced by the standard terms for business when nothing else is negotiated. These standard terms are usually much more beneficial for the customer than what the business would be
* [[Reading Your Rights]]: On TV always done when someone is arrested. In [[Real Life]] it only needs to be done before interrogating someone or if the police hope to use what they blurt out after arrest against them (which means it ''is'' usually done at the time of arrest, if the crime is a serious one, since the police want to be able to use anything the suspect may say during the drive to the station.) The big failure in media, though, is when the police continue talking to the suspect after he's asked for his lawyer, but before the lawyer is present. That's an excellent way to get evidence thrown out. The Police will also read the rights off of a card, never from memory, nor will they stop if the suspect interrupts them.
** Many jurisdictions actually do "read them their rights" as soon as possible. That way, if the guy says something incriminating in the police car, it's admissible evidence. However, if the police are just hauling you off for drunk and disorderly, or similar crimes, they don't bother.
Line 137:
*** As well, our highest Court, the High Court, is named after the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Which ironically consists of about 3 different courts), which is equivalent to the New York State Supreme Court (There's the Court of Appeals on top, and then the House of Lords, now the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. I like the old name.) The English High Court doesn't deal with Criminal cases; the Crown Court does. The Australian High Court can and does deal with Criminal cases routinely. Has your mind exploded yet?
**** And that doesn't count appeals to the European Court of Human Rights. It was much easier in the 1920s when the highest court was Lords.
** And don't get me started on Brazil, possibly the biggest aversion to this trope ever. Due to the lack, until very recently,{{when}} of Erga Omnes<ref>basically, the power to make a decision be binding for all similar cases</ref> in supreme court decisions in Brazil, any judgment or 'precedent' made by the court was valid only for that specific case only! So virtually anyone who had the money and patience could and would keep making appeals all the way up to the supreme court. And why would they want to do that, you might ask? Simple: if you're not on trial for a violent crime or haven't been convicted of a previous one, you don't have to go jail until your final appeal... which can take over a decade. Sometimes, allowing for enough time to pass and the stature of limitations to kick in. [http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/cms/verTexto.asp?servico=estatistica&pagina=movimentoProcessual No wonder the court judges over 100.000 cases per annum]!
* [[Wrongful Accusation Insurance]]: In Real Life, there are two things wrong with this scenario:
*# If someone has been successfully framed for a serious crime, they most likely aren't free to investigate it. They're in jail.
Line 149:
[[Category:Did Not Do the Research]]
[[Category:Acceptable Breaks From Reality]]
[[Category:Artistic License
[[Category:The Courtroom Index]]
[[Category:Crime and Punishment Tropes]]
[[Category:
| |||