h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We have the same, or similar, rights here in the UK (at least, I assume they apply in Scotland. There are some differences between English/Welsh and Scottish legal procedure.) Criminals have to be 'read their rights' and have the right to legal representation. Cases are usually tried in the district where the crime took place, or in the nearest Crown Court in the case of serious offenses. However, exceptions have been made in the past if public feeling over a crime was running so high that it was believed that the accused would not get a fair trial. I assume the rest of the 'rights' guaranteed by the Amendment apply here, we just don't have a written Constitution.

Mind you, how do you reconcile the right 'to a speedy trial' with the sheer number of court cases that have to be tried?

Simple. "Speedy" is undefined, so as long as the courts are working hard, they can be said to be upholding the 6th. Except in capital crimes, people are usually not detained until their trials, so it is possible to push the trial back several months without undue strain on the accused. I know someone who has been waiting over a year to go to trial for a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) charge, but he asked for and was granted a delay on that one. If he could delay it until his death, it would be fine by him.

That sounds fine, in theory. But I once read that one of the reasons for 'plea bargaining' was to reduce the pressure on the courts. That is, if you can get the accused to plead guilty to a lesser charge, you don't have to go through the hassle of a trial. Plus the police 'clear-up' records (i.e., how many crimes they've solved) look better. (I appreciate that there probably are other reasons for plea bargaining, it's just not something we have over here.) If the accused is allowed to walk away while waiting for a trial, where's the problem with the courts. Or is there just so much crime in some areas that you have to do something.

(in the US) Some of my friends have suggested that there is however a growing trend to make it more difficult for people to get out on bail while awaiting trial. Going back to Mike Dukakis's presidential campaign (he furloughed a criminal who killed while out of jail) just about any accusation of being a "threat to the community" can result in bail being denied.

It's very timely to note that the "Miranda rule" was upheld by the US Supreme Court just last month. It's conceivable that it could have been overturned, but it wasn't.

At risk of being pedantic, the Miranda rule says that the accused must know one's own rights, i.e. must be informed of them. (This seems logical. Would you really have them otherwise?) It is not, strictly speaking, spelled out in the Constitution.

But it's the Gideon rule that says that the accused has a right to an attorney even if one can't afford to pay. Gideon was a 20th century Supreme Court case that interpreted the "right to counsel" phrase in the Constitution to mean that the government had to pay if the accused couldn't.

I seem to remember a film about this, which was based on a genuine case. It's a long time since I saw it, but I seem to recall that it starred Henry Fonda. It was about a man who was wrongly convicted of a crime because he couldn't afford an attourney, so he had to defend himself. With no legal training and no help from anybody he was convicted. While in prison he studied the Constitution, the legal system and the law, particularly with reference to his own case. He fought for an appeal, which was granted and which he won. He used this to get the interpretation of the 6th Amendment changed so that everybody was entitled to a state-funded attourney if they couldn't afford one themself.

It was a good film. Wish I could remember the title!

In the UK it's called "The Rule of Law", and was made a big deal out of by Dicey, a man who wrote a book about 200 years ago.

The UK Government recently adjusted the right to not incriminate yourself, they can now use silence as incriminating (at least last I heard) not sure where that will take them.

Hopefully if you are a mute suspect they'll take that into consideration too...

just nod once if you're guilty or twice if you're not innocent

In NZ, where the laws have evolved separate from the originating English laws, an accused person can apply to the High (Supreme) Court to have the case thrown out on the grounds of the prosecution's undue delay in proceding with the case.

Since this law was enacted and a few people had their cases dismissed in this way, the whole legal system has become much speedier.

Now that sounds like a plan.
Curious, What is the crime rate like in NZ?

Much the same as all other Western societies. We have our share of lowlifes wanting to live the highlife at someone else's expense.

We don't have a lot of gun-assisted crimes because our gun laws are quite tough.

NZ society's structure is similar to Australias.

.... one big difference is that the (so-called) indigenous Maori population (15%) are responsible for 40% of the crime. They also make up 50% of the prison population.

I realize that there are an enormous number of crimes performed each day, but i think that right to a speedy trial was established so that people would not be made to wait out the rest of their natural lives for a trivial offense. Also, the trial judge is responsible not only for keeping the trial impartial, but also for making sure it goes smoothly and quickly. With luck, he can try a dozen cases in a day. There are even certain television shows that show civil cases being tried in 15 minutes apiece. The trouble is in cases that get drawn out for weeks/months/years on end, and those are few enough.

I strongly disagree with the idea of having Court Decisions on TV. Matters relating to people's lives are being carried out - it's serious, not entertainment.

1) These people freely agree to appear on those tv shows.

2) They serve to educate people in the law and the legal system.

3) It has never been the practice of closing the doors to a courtroom audience in any democracy unless severe disturbances are being generated. A television audience is the most unobtrusive type imaginable.

4) It is the policy of this country to conduct justice in the full view of its citizens for the purpose of allowing those citizens to witness for themselves exactly what sort of justice system they possess, to allow them to act as a check on it during elections if they feel they are dissatisfied with it.

The snag with the system is that it doesn't give the whole picture. Nobody (or only a small percentage of the population) watches a whole trial on TV, so the vast majority only see bits and pieces and make their decisions based on that. By 'decisions' I mean decisions on the kind of legal system you have, and also on the guilt or innocence of the person on trial. If it's a major trial and the TV channels summarise for the benefit of those who work all day, the summary will be skewed to a certain extent according to what the channel and / or its legal correspondents think was important that day. You can also end up with trial by media if you're not careful about coverage before the trial, and the jurors may become biased by what they read or see on TV regardless of how they answer during jury selection.

In Britain we have a news black-out between the time of arrest and the time of the trial, so that nobody speculates on TV or in print and none of the potential jurors gets a chance to form an opinion about the case. Trials are open to anybody who wants to go and who can get there. Local and national TV and press are free to report in whatever depth they wish during the trial, but filming and taking photographs is prohibited. We still get to know what kind legal system we have, but it's one heck of a lot less intrusive. Personally, I prefer our way of doing things, but then I am British and I've grown up with our system.

The earlier response was about the 15 minute trials on tv over somebody's cat dying or other trivia. But on to the big fish...

Your media blackout thing is a pretty good idea. As for the rest of it, I have considerable doubts. If the entire trial is televised, then the entire trial is available. If you only get your snippets from the news, then your reporter's slant on it will be the only knowledge you have about it. With a televised trial, the newsmen can still make their personally biased and overly simplified reports, but those go out to veiwers who have actually followed the entire thing, and they can give the lie to those misleading reports. One example stands out clearly in my mind... during the OJ SImpson murder trial. If someone had just told me that the gloves didn't fit, I would have been astonished and convinced he was innocent. However, when I watched the film, I could see that the entire event was clearly staged, and his horrible acting skills showed up. There are any number of ways he could have made his hands swell up overnight, and the fact that the event took place first thing in the morning also cries out for a setup... they didn't want his hands to return to normal size before he got to perform.

I guess that if the people agree to have their trial televised it isn't too bad... but you may get maniacs who commit crimes just to be able to boast about them on TV. On the other hand - no matter what the system is, you're bound to get people who want to abuse it. Knowing how the system works by having open courts is a good idea - but I still don't feel comfortable with the situation. Mainly from seeing the extremes it has been used to in America, where, with the O.J. Simpson trial as an example, it was considered more a soap-opera than justice.

I don't know what extent the cases' media coverage in Britain are biased - I think that they are normally fairly neutral - but I never pay any attention, really. Afterall, it is sad that there are always going to be crimes, the innocent and guilty. Most of the time I pay little attention as it does not affect me. May be selfish, but it is true.

If cameras were allowed in the court, all the artists would be out of a job, which would be a great pitty.

All reporting is biased. Regardless of a reporter's pledge to neutrality, in the course of researching a story, that journalist will make certain conclusions, which may not reflect those you would have made yourself. The only possible way to receive neutral reporting is to be able to witness the trial yourself.

"All the artists would be out of a job" - I've never heard a sillier reason to keep courts closed. Artists still sold their pictures of the OJ trial, so you can bet this one is entirely false, too. It employs a few cameramen, a director, a producer, several technicians, and an army of gaffers to film a court case, but employs only one artist when you don't film it.

And OJ trial aside, daytime tv shows with civil claims aside, real trial-by-jury coverage is available live from a cable station called Court TV. These people involved in the case aren't asked, either, but as before, trials are public. If the defendant had special reason to, his attorneys could move for the removal of the cameras, and if they could show sufficient cause, the cameras would be removed.