Artistic License Law: Difference between revisions

m
m (categories and general cleanup)
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{trope}}
{{quote|'''Strong Bad''': This is a sub-poe-eena! I summons Exhibit 4-B to my chambers!<br />
'''Homestar Runner''': Sustained! (hits self in face with gavel)|''[[Homestar Runner (Web Animation)|Homestar Runner]]''}}
|''[[Homestar Runner]]''}}
 
This is a listing of liberties taken with how law is presented.
Line 11 ⟶ 12:
'''NOTE: This should not be listed on a work's page as a trope.'''
----
{{examples}}
 
 
* [[Chalk Outline]]: ''[[Averted Trope|They do not do that in real life.]]'' It actually ''does'' contaminate the area and makes it more difficult for the investigators.
* [[Conviction Byby Contradiction]]: While a legal case has to hold together logically to some extent, "logic dictates that this must be what happened" is ''not'' sufficient for a conviction. Not to mention, most crimes aren't simple logic puzzles anyways - Most "Solve it yourself" Mysteries are actually presented this way because the average person does not have the skills of a trained detective or inspector.
** [[Conviction Byby Counterfactual Clue]]: Even ''worse'', because you can even ''point out'' that you're convicted for a ''wrong reason''.
** In civil cases, which have a lower burden of proof, this can be legitimate. It's known as "res ipsa loquitur" (The thing speaks for itself) and it basically amounts to "We can't prove the specific sequence of events that led to the defendant wronging us, but there is no possible innocent explanation." The common example is a guy who is hit by a bag of flour that is thrown out a factory window. Or an X-Ray after an operation showing a scalpel left behind in the patient's stomach. There's no legitimate reason for doing that, so whatever the explanation was, they're still liable.
* [[Courtroom Antic]]: Many of these would result in the lawyer being warned, and possibly removed from the case or punished (with fines or brief jail stays) for contempt of court. Major antics could cause the judge to declare a mistrial, and a consistently ill-behaved lawyer would risk disbarment (though most bars will put up with a lot of antics rather than go that far). In summary, it's usually up to the judge to keep the courtroom under control, and each judge has different levels of tolerance. Smart lawyers know exactly how far they can go with a particular judge.
* [[Disregard That Statement]]: Trials, and judges, are complicated. There's no question that there are certain things lawyers aren't supposed to say or lawyers aren't supposed to ask (and a witness not answer), and, if a lawyer does so, the proper response is for the judge to invoke the trope. Actual practice is complex. On one hand, questions like these are part of the tactical arsenal of any lawyer; on the other, courts do have the power to sanction a lawyer who does this excessively or blatantly, not to mention the risk of creating something appeal-worthy. As a rule, however, the sort of things that gets said in fiction would get most lawyers in a world of hurt.
* [[Eagleland Osmosis]]: not purely a law trope, but it's one of the worst-affected professions. People in every country have seen a lot of American [[Law Procedural|Law Procedurals]]s, and often [[Did Not Do the Research]] when making one set in their own country.
** In the US, protections against self-incrimination render prosecutors unable to use a defendant's silence as evidence under ''any'' circumstances, and between that and hearsay rules, it's standard legal advice that ''nothing'' said to the police can ever help your case. Not so in the UK, where the prosecution can and will question why an alibi first presented at trial couldn't have been given at the time of arrest, with obvious implications. Hence "[[You Do Not Have to Say Anything]], ''but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court''."
** If you speak French, watch the court scene in ''Gentlemen Prefer Blondes'' and have a good laugh.
** The Fifth Amendment, to an Australian, is the Amendment to the Constitution giving increased rights to aboriginal people, an important constitutional change but not the one everything in Australia who isn't a lawyer thinks it is. And of course in the UK the response would be "What constitution?". The constitution consisting of 900 years of common and statutory law, precedent, and international treaties.
*** Canadians don't have a "Fifth Amendment" at all; instead we have the Canada Evidence Act. You cannot refuse to testify in a court of law and under oath; however, if you testify under the protection of the above-named act, the police and the courts cannot use your testimony as evidence against you(although this doesn't mean that the police can't use your testimony as a starting point for an investigation). There's also a similar provision in the Charter.
*** The fifth time that Canada's constitution was amended was to allow Parliament to sit for longer than usual in the middle of [[World War OneI]]. It, uh, doesn't help you in court much.
*** The Fifth Amendment to the Irish Constitution ''doesn't say anything''. It deleted text from the previous version and renumbered some articles to account for that. Legally important, but would never come up in a trial.
** In France, you didn't have the right to be legally represented while questioned before 2011! It changed in 2011 in order to respect the European legislation.
Line 31:
** An interesting reversal of this trope occurs when people assume that certain legal facts are true '''only''' in the United States. Freedom of speech, for example, is a quintessential American value, but one that is shared by most other developed countries. The specifics vary from country to country, as noted above, but similar protections may be shared among different countries.
** German judges commonly have to remind people not call them "Euer Ehren" (Your Honor). The correct form of address is "Herr Vorsitzender" (roughly Mr. Chairman). In the same manner, many French call judges "Your Honor" instead of "Mr President".
*** 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 EXACTLY''exactly'' that, the right to remain silent. Not the right to stop the questioning (although if you aren't under arrest or being charged with something you can stop it), but the right not to answer questions. Cops can then try to use difficult or incriminating questions which will get a response out of you.
**** 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 NOT''not'' allowed to keep questioning you.
** 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 47:
** In other common law jurisdictions which aren't America, the general rule is that if you lose the case, you pay the other side's expenses. There are exceptions for certain "charity cases" and messy cases where both sides win on certain points.
* [[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|Big Bad's]]'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 NOT''not'' evidence. Some states though apply the Civil Law and the confession IS evidence.
*** The awesome German word for it is "Beweisverwertungsverbot" (disallowment of evidence in court)
* [[Hilarity Sues]]: Sometimes an aversion, as ''they'' would be sued in [[Real Life]]
* [[Hollywood Law]]
* [[Inhumanable Alien Rights]]: Most courts wouldn't be that nice to someone trying to capture and exploit a sentient being, even if there's no ''specific'' law against it. On the other hand, the issue hasn't come up yet. ''That we know of.''
** University of the Man in the Pub: the Common Law definition of "Murder most Foul" is "If a man wound a Rational Creature under the Queen's Peace so that he die within a year and a day". Under that definition, if an Alien comes to Britain and commits no crimes and gets murdered, the murderer will be convicted. Other jurisdictions may vary.
* [[Insanity Defense]]: In real life, if an Insanity Defense works, the defendant doesn't walk out of court a free man. He walks out of court in the company of a couple of burly orderlies from a mental institution. Whether he ever walks out of ''there'' a free man depends on the psychiatrists and psychologists.
** The insanity defense is also only used in less than 1% of US criminal trials, and successful 25% of the time more or less.
** In the UK, since the [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910025_en_1#l1g3 ''Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991''], the judge now has extended options upon giving the verdict, including an absolute discharge. But living with the social stigma of being legally classed "insane" is another matter.
** 20 states allow juries to find a defendant [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html "guilty but mentally ill,"] which means that even if the defendant is "cured" of his mental illness he still has to serve prison time.
** The U.S. Federal Court system works similarly; sentencing and determination of mental health are independent. If a standard sentence for bank robbery is, say, five years, a bank robber who is found mentally unstable would be placed in a mental hospital until fit to serve his sentence, at which point he would serve the entire five years.
** For that matter, the time spent in the mental institution is often longer than the normal sentence would be. John HinkleyHinckley (who attempted the assassination of President Reagan), for example, would probably be free by now had he been found guilty.
*** Nor is a mental institution necessarily more comfortable or safer than prison. Peter Sutcliffe (see below) has been the target of three savage attacks from fellow inmates at Broadmoor, one of which left him blinded in one eye.
** ''[[Cracked.com]]'' brings us [http://www.cracked.com/article_18385_7-bullshit-police-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html 7 Bullshit Police Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)], detailing this trope, among others.
*** And the criminally insane are kept separate from people there of their own volition.
*** And you cannot just legally say "I'm insane" - Typically, most insane people don't ''know'' they're legally insane; so if you say "I did this because I was insane", you'll probably not be believed or put in therapy, instead.
** When this trope is invoked by non-insane defendants on [[police proceduralsprocedural]]s it's often to avoid a potentially worse sentence (like the death penalty). This is generally [[Truth in Television]] - the majority of insanity defense are used in murder cases.
** If you're British then doubtless you will have heard of the prison Broadmoor, specifically for these criminals. Some of its notorious inmates include the 'Yorkshire Ripper' Peter Sutcliffe, and the surviving member of the Moors Murderers Ian Brady. Its warning siren is extremely loud, tested at 10am every Monday morning, and children from Berkshire are told to stay inside if they hear it at any other time.
*** The old jury verdict was "Not Guilty by reason of Insanity", Then, a nutter tried to assassinate Queen Victoria, so the verdict was changed to "Guilty but Insane" and changed back in the 1960s. At Sutcliffe's trial, the defence attorney stood up on his hind legs, fixed the Jury with his [[Beady Eye]] and offered the [[Chewbacca Defense]], "My client's crimes are so horrific that he must be mad, therefore you have to let him off." They declined.
** Or just because defendants think that insane asylums are easier to break out of/be broken out of than prisons.
** Many of the mistakes may be caused by confusion with a simillar, but distinct, defense called "diminished capacity", which puts the burden of proof on the prosecution and allows the defendant to go free if successful (since it results in a regular "not guilty" verdict). It's typically more popular than the insanity defense for precisely those reasons.
* [[Interrogation Byby Vandalism]]: Damage to property (or threatening to) is illegal anyway, let alone when used to get information.
* [[Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique]]: If it's found to have been used in building a case, the prosecution may as well go home. Since the suspect obviously did not waive his/her right against self-incrimination, all the information that resulted from it and everything that it led to will be declared inadmissible. This is called "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree": everything that resulted from a tainted procedure is tainted itself.
** This is not the case in Germany (and, indeed, a great shame since there had been a public and even political discussion about permitting the police to use just a little bit of torture in some cases - this was not even five years ago), where it has been ruled by the highest Court, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, that there is NO need to instill a Fruits of the Poisonous Tree policy. However, this seeming Aversion of the trope is then subverted, as the courts have been very clear that a Beweisverwertungsverbot (disallowment of evidence in court) is still instilled if it is neccessary from stopping police and other state forces from using unlawful procedures.
Line 81 ⟶ 80:
* [[Not Proven]]: [[Truth in Television]]. It's not enough for the police and prosecutors to be certain, they have to have a sufficiently strong legal case, built on admissible evidence. Quite a few real-life cases fall under this umbrella.
** Scotland even has Not Proven as a possible outcome in jury trials with the options Guilty, Not Proven and Not Guilty.
*** The "Scots Verdict," "Not Proven," has been translated as "Not Guilty and Don't Do It Again." (It has the same legal effect as an acquittal but perhaps allows the jury to feel better about it.) People have been know to appeal the "not proven" verdict because the stigma attached.
*** Common Law assumes Innocent unless proven Guilty: you must be proven guilty beyond alla reasonable doubt. Civil Law assumes the balance of probabilities; if you probably done it, then, you are liable. [[Mary Queen of Scots]] tried to impose the Civil Law on Scotland and the compromise was the Scots Verdict: "Ye probably done it, but there is nae enough evidence tae hang ye."
** In Germany, you can be found "Not Guilty" and "Not Guilty because of reasonable doubt", meaning it's kind of like second-class acquittal while not in law then at least socially. Sadly, because one won't have an "legal disadvantage" because of it, you are not allowed to appeal.
* [[Off Onon a Technicality]]: [[Truth in Television]] again, less often than a lot of people realize, and mostly at the appeal level than in the original trial. At that, most fictional examples of this trope show it happening much more frequently and for reasons that would never stand in a real trial, ofteningoften involving dismissing evidence through a grand misappropriation of Miranda Rights.
{{quote| '''[http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/law/back20010724.shtml Bob Ingersoll]''': In my law firm I am considered one of the more successful lawyers when it comes to getting evidence deemed inadmissable, which I have done one time in my twenty-five years at the firm.}}
** Of course, without this we wouldn't be able to have [[The Punisher]] or [[Dexter]] and their ilk hunt down guilty people that the system can't touch.
** And even if the appeals court finds a technical flaw, usually the remedy is just a new sentencing phase, or a new trial in which the defendant is convicted again anyway. This is exactly what happened in Miranda's case.
Line 115 ⟶ 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 1/1/11, 2011, Australia's introduced the Australian Consumer Law, which prevents standard form contract (generally, contracts that are not open to negotiation) for consumers (typically people who buy goods for personal or household use) to have disclaimers against low quality, unsuitability or liability caused by the products, unless it is reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the supplier. However, care must be taken to ensure that the person you're dealing with is a supplier (so private selling or shady traders won't be affected by the law).
** 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 legalylegally allowed to put into a contract. This encourages business owners to very carefully check their general terms and conditions because if any mistake is found, it's them who will get screwed.
* [[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.
** Sometimes, in media, a careless cop "blows the arrest" by not reading the suspect his/her rights at the time of arrest and the suspect has to be released. In real life, the "Miranda Warning" is not necessarily to a lawful arrest, only to making the suspect's post-arrest statements admissible in court. In many if not most cases, a suspect can be convicted on other evidence than statements out of his/her own mouth.
*** This is one of the few law tropes ''[[Law and Order (TV)|Law and& Order]]'' gets right every time they invoke it.
** Another bit that occasionally gets ignored is that people arrested by private citizens (including Security Guards and Officers) do not have to be read their Miranda rights, and statements made before being turned over to police custody are fully incriminating.
*** Most works seem unaware that a Citizen's Arrest is even a thing, leading to several plot lines in various media where a character is labeled a vigilante for actions that are completely legal.
Line 127 ⟶ 126:
* [[Stop or I Will Shoot]]: Cops in fiction routinely threaten and use lethal force against suspects that nobody at the moment would reasonably believe posed any danger to life or limb.
** And most (if not all nowadays) department specifically prohibit threatening to shoot or firing warning shots.
* [[HilaritySued Suesfor Superheroics]]: Sometimes an aversion, as ''they'' would be sued in [[Real Life]]
* [[There Is No Higher Court]]: Lots of cases are appealed at least one step up the chain. (See [[Off Onon a Technicality]].) Very few get to either State or Federal Supreme Court level, though. It has to involve constitutional issues, not just regular errors, for this.
** This is not actually true. The federal Supreme Court does a lot of work on clarifying federal statutes on which lower courts have disagreed that never touch on constitutional issues, though admittedly it's better to allege a constitutional violation if you want to get to the Supreme Court. It's egregiously wrong in state courts, though. Most state high courts will do more work on statutory, procedural, or other issues than they ever do on constitutional issues.
** Then why, in ''Law and Order,'' are criminal trials routinely held in the Supreme Court? Because [[wikipedia:New York Supreme Court|the Supreme Court of New York]] is actually the ''lowest'' level of criminal court, with two further layers of appeal courts above it. Presumably, the framers of the state constitution got the org chart upside down....
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. SomtimesSometimes, 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.
#*# To the legal system, ''why'' you committed a crime is utterly irrelevant. Having a good reason doesn't get you any points unless, say, it gets murder knocked down to involuntary manslaughter.
 
* The reading of the will. [[Rule of Drama|It may make for good drama]], but it doesn't happen in real life. What really happens is that the executor, spouse, or other next of kin will contact the decedent's lawyer to see about the will. The lawyer will then meet with the executor, and take the will through probate court. In most cases, unless you are the executor, or are a beneficiary who specifically demands that the lawyer show you the will, you will probably never see it. You will simply receive a check, certificate of title, or whatever your inheritance is, be told that it is your inheritance, and asked to sign a receipt.
** The will actually also doesn't mean a great deal. It's the '''Probate''' that's granted by a Court after a person's death which is important (it's not actually the dead person who gives the property out- the courts do that through the Probate.) Sure, the Court will usually take the will's instructions into account when cutting its probate orders, but if the will is contested, the will may be entirely ignored.
Line 150 ⟶ 149:
[[Category:Did Not Do the Research]]
[[Category:Acceptable Breaks From Reality]]
[[Category:Artistic License Indexes]]
[[Category:The Courtroom Index]]
[[Category:Crime and Punishment Tropes]]
[[Category:index{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Artistic License Law]]